Dear Attorney,

Good day. I would like to seek your advice on a situation involving our pet dog. Our dog is securely tied within our property and has a designated shelter. We also operate a small store in front of our residence. Recently, a father and child came to our store. While the father was making a purchase, the child wandered off toward our dog. Despite being tied, the dog bit the child. The father claimed he did not notice his child approaching the dog.

I would like to know if we are legally responsible for this incident, considering the dog was on our property and secured at the time. I would greatly appreciate your guidance on this matter.

Respectfully,
A Responsible Pet Owner

Legal Responsibility for Dog Bites: A Comprehensive Discussion

Dog bite cases in the Philippines often involve questions of liability, particularly when incidents occur on the dog owner's property. To address the situation presented, it is crucial to analyze the issue under Philippine laws, jurisprudence, and legal principles, as well as consider the roles of due diligence and contributory negligence.

Relevant Laws

Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386)
Articles 2176, 2180, and 2187 of the Civil Code outline the general principles of quasi-delict, parental responsibility, and liability for damage caused by animals.
- Article 2176 states that a person who, by act or omission, causes damage to another through fault or negligence is obliged to compensate the injured party.
- Article 2180 provides that parents are responsible for damages caused by their minor children under their authority.
- Article 2183 specifically addresses the liability of owners of animals, establishing that owners or possessors of animals are responsible for damages caused by them, whether the animal is under their care or has escaped.
Anti-Rabies Act of 2007 (Republic Act No. 9482)
This law requires pet owners to observe certain responsibilities, such as ensuring pets are vaccinated against rabies, keeping pets secured, and exercising due diligence to prevent harm to others.

Key Considerations

Owner’s Responsibility for Damage Caused by Animals
Under Article 2183, the owner of an animal is liable for damage it causes, except when the damage is caused by force majeure or the negligence of the injured party. The law presumes responsibility, making it necessary for owners to demonstrate that they exercised diligence to prevent the harm.

In your case, the dog was confined to your property and tied securely. This suggests that you exercised reasonable care to prevent the animal from roaming or causing harm. However, the nature and location of the dog’s shelter, visibility of warning signs, and the general accessibility of the area may also be scrutinized to determine whether sufficient precautions were taken.
Parental Responsibility and Contributory Negligence
Article 2180 holds parents responsible for the actions of their minor children. The father, as the guardian of the child, is expected to exercise supervision and ensure the child’s safety. His failure to notice or prevent the child from approaching the dog may be considered contributory negligence, potentially reducing or negating your liability.
Due Diligence
The Anti-Rabies Act of 2007 emphasizes pet owners’ responsibilities, such as securing pets and keeping them under control. Your compliance with these obligations strengthens your defense, particularly if your dog is vaccinated and securely tied within your property.
Presence of Warning Signs
Posting clear warning signs near the dog’s area can serve as evidence of your diligence. These signs inform visitors of potential risks, placing a degree of responsibility on them to avoid unsafe behavior.
Jurisprudence
Philippine courts have addressed similar cases involving animal liability. The Supreme Court often balances the owner’s diligence with the contributory negligence of the injured party. In cases where a pet owner has demonstrated reasonable care, liability may be mitigated or shifted to the injured party.

Legal Analysis

Based on the circumstances you described, several factors may work in your favor:

Confinement of the Dog: The dog was tied and within your property, indicating that you took steps to control it.
Guardian’s Role: The child’s father failed to prevent the child from approaching the dog, despite being present.
Secure Environment: If the dog’s shelter is adequately fenced and warning signs are posted, it further establishes your compliance with safety measures.

However, your liability is not entirely negated by these points. The law generally holds pet owners liable for their animals’ actions unless clear evidence of contributory negligence or unavoidable circumstances is presented.

Recommendations

Secure Legal Representation
Seek the assistance of a lawyer to evaluate the specific facts of your case and guide you through any legal proceedings.
Strengthen Your Defense
- Provide proof of the dog’s confinement (e.g., photos or documentation).
- Gather vaccination records to demonstrate compliance with the Anti-Rabies Act.
- Obtain witness statements supporting your diligence and the guardian’s negligence.
Engage in Amicable Settlement
Consider initiating dialogue with the child’s parents to reach a settlement. This approach can save time and resources compared to litigation.

Final Thoughts

Dog bite cases require a careful balance of rights and responsibilities. Philippine law generally presumes liability on the part of animal owners but recognizes exceptions where owners have exercised due diligence or where the injured party’s negligence contributed to the incident.

In your case, the presence of contributory negligence by the child’s father, coupled with evidence of your compliance with legal obligations, provides a strong defense. However, consulting with a lawyer is essential to ensure your interests are adequately represented and to navigate the complexities of Philippine law.