Respondent Arthur Sison contends that he should not be liable for moral damages to Mary

Banag, who was attacked by his dog. He testified that the incident happened while he was taking
his afternoon nap and immediately stopped the attack when he learned about it, being awaken by
the commotion outside. Also, he states that if Mary did not yielded the gate to her own accord,
the dog would have not attacked her. Furthermore, Sison had a written warning posted on his
gate about a presence of a dog, which could have prevented the misfortune. Likewise, Arthur
Sison was the one to escort Mary to a nearby clinic and paid for her medical treatments. Sison
also adds that his dog had not attacked anyone since the incident. Furthermore, he blames Fred
Puzon, Mary Banags father, for such accident because he allowed his daughter to leave the
house without an escort.
What Sison seems to assail is that Mary Banag is chargeable of contributory negligence.
Negligence may be a felony and a quasi-delict and required discernment as a condition of
liability, either criminal or civil. Therefore, as a rule, a child under nine years of age is, by
analogy, conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence (Jarco Marketing v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. 129792). In this case, Arthur Sison claims that he had put up a warning sign about
the presence of his dog, to which Mary ignored. Mary, being only six years old, may not be fully
capable to comprehended the sign and what danger in may pose. Therefore, it may be inferred
that Mary Banag did not have any fault in the dogs attack, being incapable of such negligence.
Furthermore, Arthur Sison should have been diligent enough to lock his gate as he knew that
there might be customers coming in to buy the ice-candies he sells.
Also as a rule, the possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is
responsible for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This
responsibility shall cease only in case the damage should come from force majure or from the
fault of the person who has suffered damage (Art. 2183, New Civil Code). Mary Banag,
incapable of negligence, could not have caused the damage to herself. Although, Arthur Sison
claims that he was napping during the time of the incident, such claim is still rebuttable to him
since the rule clearly states that the owner or the possessor of the animal shall be responsible for
whatever damage it may cause. Moreover, the rule was made for all kinds of animals, and not
only to vicious ones, as Arthur Sison asserts that his dog had not attacked anyone since the
incident.
The fact that Arthur Sison and Fred Puzon reside on the same street, it is only normal to let
Mary out just to buy ice-candies from a neighbor. Also, even though she was accompanied by an
adult, it is inevitable that the dog might have attacked her still. Sison also states that he had also
paid for Marys medical treatment therefore escaping liability. However, Article 2219 of the Civil
Code states that moral damages may be recovered in quasi-delicts causing physical injuries as
Arthur Sison clearly exhibited signs of negligence in the case.
With all the arguments presented above, we may clearly infer that Arthur Sison is liable for
moral damages to Mary Banag due to the lack of diligence in running his business of selling ice-
candies. He should have been diligent enough to make sure that there was always someone to see
if there are customers, or if there could have not been anyone to attend such matter, he should
have made sure the gate remained locked to prevent such misfortune. The medical bills Sison
had paid only amounts to the actual damages, but it has not yet covered the moral damages
suffered by Mary Banag.