. WHAT IS VICARIOUS LIABILITY?

Vicarious liability refers to a person’s liability for the act or omission of another person he is
legally responsible for. The persons who may be held liable for the act or omission of another
person include parents and guardians. The liability covers the obligation to pay for the injuries
to persons and damages. Damages may include the actual damages for the loss suffered; moral
damages for mental anguish, serious anxiety, and sleepless nights; and exemplary damages,
which are imposed as a way to set an example to the public.

dog bit my niece while she was playing at the park. The dog’s owner is the boyfriend of our
neighbor. He does not live in our subdivision; according to some neighbors, he lives in Laguna.
He only gave us P3,000—definitely not enough to answer for the hospitalization and medical
needs of my niece. Can I file a case for reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries?
Paloma

Dear Paloma,
We regret to inform you that you cannot file a complaint for reckless imprudence resulting to
physical injuries. First and foremost, we would like to emphasize that criminal liability only
attaches to an individual person for the wrongful act/s he or she committed against another
person or for his or her negligence of which the law imposes upon him or her criminal
responsibility.

In the situation that you have presented to us, we submit that you cannot file a criminal
complaint against the boyfriend of your neighbor. While he is the owner of the dog that was
involved in the unfortunate incident, no criminal responsibility attaches to him because he was
not the one who committed the wrongful act.

Nevertheless, you may file a civil action for damages on the basis of quasi-delict. As provided
for under Article 2176 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, “Whoever by act or omission
causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is
called quasi-delict x x x”

It bears stressing, though, that it is incumbent upon you to establish that the biting incident
transpired on account of the negligence of the said owner and that your niece did not contribute
to the incident. This is in consonance with Article 2183 of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines, which states that, “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 majeure or from the
fault of the person who has suffered damage.” I assume from the fact given that the niece is a
minor. If i am not mistaken, in tort or quasi-delict cases, if the injured is a minor, he or she will
not be liable to any contributory negligence. Therefore the liability of the owner of the dog will
be based on “strict liabilty” so that whether the owner was negligent or not, the fact that his dog
bit the girl, he will be liable to pay damages to the person injured. Is my argument correct?
Raymart L. Maralit
Juris Doctor 1

SUMMARY OF TESTIMONIAL STATEMENT OF MR. FRED PUZON

That on or about September 12, 3 o’clock in the afternoon, Mr. Fred Puzon
twenty-one (21) years of age, a government employee and a residence of 24 Annapolis
St., Cubao, Quezon City while waiting on the said Street for his friend named Henry Uy
to come and pick up him so they could go to the mall saw Mary, a six (6) years old and
also a residence of Annapolis St., Cubao Quezon City approached the gate of named
Arthur Sison to buy ice-candy. According to him no one answered so Mary kept on
knocking softly at the gate. A young girl of her age passed by and waived at her. Then,
Arthur’s dog came out to the yard and Mary tested the gate by pushing it and it yielded
and the dog jumped out. Mary held the gate open and called in saying that she wanted
to buy ice-candy and the dog go after and attack her. Mr. Fuzon was immediately ran to
help Mary but unfortunately, he tripped on the gutter and fell on his hands and knees.
He recovered quickly, moved on, and kicked the dog away. Then, he stood by to protect
Mary from further attacks. The dog kept on barking and looked as if it would attack them
but, Arthur came out of his house and sent his dog into his yard. Arthur picked Mary up
and called a tricycle to brought Mary to a nearby clinic for treatment.
SUMMARY OF LETTER OF MR. ARTHUR SISON

This is a letter of Arthur Sison to Mr. Peter Banag the father of the victim and a
residence of 16 Annapolis St., Cubao, Quezon City which the former refused to pay for
damages held in the latter.
That on or about September 12, Arthur Sison a residence of 12 Annapolis Street,
Cubao, Quezon City, engaged in the business of selling ice-candies was napping in his
house on the afternoon that Mary came out to his gate. He was awakened when he
heard some commotion outside. He thought for a while that people were quarreling. But
he heard someone shouting that his dog named Prancer had attacked a child. He
immediately got up and run out. He saw his neighbor named Fred Puzon trying to stop
his dog from attacking Mary who lay on the ground just outside the gate. Other
neighbors had started to come out to see what was happening. According to him, he
always sold his ice-candies at the gate when people came to buy. The gate had an
automatic closer. But at times, he left it unlocked from the inside because his children
often went in and out. He further added that there is a written warning in his gate about
the presence of his dog and that date his dog had not attacked any one. He called a
tricycle and brought Mary to a medical clinic nearby for treatment of her wounds and for
an injection. Later, the mother of Mary followed them to the clinic and she comforted her
daughter. He paid all the bill.
MY LEGAL OPINION AS A COUNSEL

First and foremost, i would like to emphasize that criminal liability only attaches to
an individual person for the wrongful act/s he or she committed against another person
or for his or her negligence of which the law imposes upon him or her criminal
responsibility.

In the case at bar, I submit that Mr. Peter Banag cannot file a criminal complaint
against the Mr. Arthur Sison. While he is the owner of the dog that was involved in the
unfortunate incident, no criminal responsibility attaches to him because he was not the
one who committed the wrongful act.

Nevertheless, he may file a civil action for damages on the basis of quasi-delict.
As provided for under Article 2176 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, “Whoever
by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged
to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict x x x.” The obligation
imposed by Art. 2176 is demandable not only for one’s own acts or omissions but also
for those of persons for whom one is responsible for and that is under “vicarious
liability.” Vicarious liability refers to a person’s liability for the act or omission of another
person he is legally responsible for.

It bears stressing, though, that it is incumbent upon to establish that the biting
incident transpired on account of the negligence of Mr. Arthur Sison and that Mary
contributed to the incident. This is in consonance with Article 2183 of the New Civil
Code of the Philippines, which states that, “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 majeure or from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.”

It can be gleaned from the facts of case that Mary is a minor and in tort or quasi-
delict cases, if the injured is a minor, he or she will not be liable to any contributory
negligence. Therefore, the liability of the owner of the dog will be based on “strict
liability” so that whether the owner was negligent or not, the fact that his dog bites the
girl, he will be liable to pay damages to the person injured.