RESPONSIBILITY OF AN ANIMAL OWNER

Dear PAO,

A French bulldog bit my niece while she was walking along their street in Makat City. The dog’s owner is
our neighbor, James. James paid my niece P2,000 and then left her behind. Apparently, the amount
given to my niece was not enough for her hospitalization and medical needs, such as anti-tetanus
vaccine. Upon learning of the incident, I talked to James to shoulder all the medical expenses incurred
by my niece and to have his dog vaccinated. James adamantly refused to shoulder the expenses or to
have his dog vaccinated. What can we do against James, can we file a criminal complaint against him?

Thank you very much,

Anthony

Dear Anthony,

You cannot file a criminal complaint against James for the wrongful act done by his dog. It is worthy to
note that the Supreme Court in the case of Arnel U. Ty, et al. vs. NBI Supervising Agent Marvin E. De
Jemil, et al. (R 182147, December 15, 2010, Ponente: Honorable former Associate Justice Presbitero
Velasco, Jr.), that criminal liability is personal, liability attaches to a person from his personal act or
omission but not from the criminal act or negligence of another. Thus, 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.

Applying the foregoing in your present situation, you cannot file a criminal complaint against James for
the wrongful act done by his dog. 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, to wit:

“Article 2176. 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 a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
(1902a)” (Emphasis supplied)

It may be emphasized, however, that in order to support your claim for damages, it is incumbent for you
to prove that the unfortunate incident happened by reason of the negligence of James.

Further, Article 2183 of the said law provides that the possessor of an animal is responsible for the
damage which it may cause.

“Article 2183. 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.
(1905)”

In addition, such act is also a violation of Republic Act 9482 or the “Anti-Rabies Act of 2007” for failure
to pay the medical expenses and to have his dog vaccinated, to wit:

“SEC. 11. Penalties.

(1) Pet Owners who fail or refuse to have their Dog registered and immunized against Rabies shall be
punished by a fine of Two thousand pesos (P2,000).

(2) Pet Owners who refuse to have their Dog vaccinated against Rabies shall be liable to pay for the
vaccination of both the Dog and the individuals Bitten by their Dog.” (Emphasis supplied)