Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

Manila
PETER BANAG,
Plantiff.
-versus- G.R. No. _____________
ARTHUR SISON,
Defendant.
x--------------------------------------------------x
DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM
Defendant, by counsel, respectfully submits its memorandum in this case:
Statement of the Facts
In order that the Court may be enlightened and guided in the sequential facts, cited
hereunder are the pertinent details.
1. Plantiff Peter Banag lives on Annapolis Street., Cubao, Quezon City with his
daughter, Mary.
2. Defendant Arthur Sison, twenty one years old (21) lives on the same street in
Annapolis Cubao, Quezon City with his dog Prancer.
3. Plantiff and defendant are neighbours. Plaintiff, through a witness named Fred
Puzon, alleges that on September 21, 3:00pm, Saturday while Fred was waiting on
the street for his friend to come and pick him up, saw Mary near Arthurs house
who was about to buy iced candies.
4. That on the same instance, Fred saw Mary approach Arthurs gate and knocked on
it. Hereby witness alleges that he saw her held the gate open and called in saying
that she wanted to buy iced candies.
5. Triggered by the noise of the gate, Prancer, Arthur Sisons dog, attacked Mary.
6. Defendant, while napping in his house that afternoon, was awakened when he
heard a commotion outside. He thought for awhile that people were quarrelling,
but he heard shouts that his dog had attacked a child.7. Defendant immediately stepped out into the
street as soon as he can to send
Prancer inside. Minutes later, Arthur called a tricycle and brought Mary to a
medical clinic nearby for treatment of her wounds for an injection. Thereafter,
Marys mother followed and paid the medical bill.
Statement of the Issues
1. Whether or not the child committed nuisance in this case.
2. Whether or not the child committed trespassing when he held the gate open to
gain access inside defendants house.
3. Whether or not there is negligence on the defendants part in allowing his dog to
roam around his occupancy.
4. Whether or not defendant should be held liable for the damages.
Arguments
1. The child committed nuisance she held the gate open, which triggered the dog to
attack her.
On laws of property, Article 694 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines states that:
A nuisance is an act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property
or anything else which: (1) injures or endangers the health and safety of
others, (2) annoys or offends the senses, (3) shocks, defies or disregards
decency or morality, (4) obstructs or interferes with free passage of any public
highway or street or any body of water, (5) hinders or impairs the use of
property.
The act of opening the gate without first calling the attention of the lawful occupant is
a clear indication that the said act was impliedly intended to injure or endanger the health and
safety of others as stated in paragraph 1 of Article 694, and to annoy or offend the senses, under
paragraph 2 of the said provision.
It should be noted here that plaintiff also acted with negligence when he allowed his
child to roam around the street without any companion who is capable enough to protect a
minor.
The mere act of opening the gate is wrong in the sense that 1.) the child should have
called the attention of the lawful occupant first, or 2.) she could have used a doorbell or
knocked on the door first before opening the gate.
2. The child committed trespassing when he held the gate open to gain access
inside the defendants house.
Under Crimes Against Security in the Revised Penal Code, Article 281 states that:The penalty of arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, shall be
imposed upon any person who shall enter the closed premises or the fenced estate of
another, while either of them or uninhabited, if the prohibition to enter be manifest
and the trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker
thereof.
The act of the child in opening the gate per se is simple trespassing, as stated in the Revised
Penal Code, which is punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos; or both.
Whether it was not the childs intention to trespass, however, the act itself is defined as
punishable by the law.
3. The dogs attack was merely an act of defense against anyone who unlawfully
enters the house.
There is a sign of caution posted on Arthur Sisons gate against anyone who would like to gain
access inside his house. The said notice states Beware of Dog, a clear indication to everyone
that any person who would like to enter the defendants house must take extra carefulness.
The defendant would like to believe that there was no negligence on his part because of two
reasons:
1. The dog was inside his lawful occupancy when he was roaming around, and
2. The dog was merely doing his act of defense when he attacked Mary, who opened
the gate without knocking on the door first.
4. The dogs attack was the end-result of the negligence on plaintiffs part.
The defendant strongly believes that he should not be liable for any damages. Aside from the
above-cited reasons, the negligence on the plaintiffs part was merely the result of the attack
of the defendants dog. It is clear on the law that anyone who acted with negligence should be
liable for the damages. In this case, the plaintiff acted with negligence when he allowed his
daughter to roam around the streets, and when the child opened the gate without knocking
on the gate first. The incident was the result of the negligence, hence, for these reasons,
defendant is not liable.
Prayer
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed for of this Honorable Court that judgment be rendered
ordering the plaintiffs petition DISMISSED for clearly being unmeritorious