G.R. No. L-2075
November 29, 1949
MARGARITA AFIALDA, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
BASILIO HISOLE and FRANCISCO HISOLE, defendants-appellees.
vs.
BASILIO HISOLE and FRANCISCO HISOLE, defendants-appellees.
REYES, J.:
FACTS:
This is an action for damages arising from injury
caused by an animal. The complaint alleges that the now deceased, Loreto
Afialda, was employed by the defendant spouses as caretaker of their carabaos
at a fixed compensation; that while tending the animals he was, on March 21,
1947, gored by one of them and later died as a consequence of his injuries;
that the mishap was due neither to his own fault nor to force majeure;
and that plaintiff is his elder sister and heir depending upon him for support.
Before filing their answer, defendants moved for the
dismissal of the complaint for lack of a cause of action, and the motion having
been granted by the lower court, plaintiff has taken this appeal.
Plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable under article 1905 of the Civil Code, which
reads:
The
possessor of an animal, or the one who uses the same, is liable for any damages
it may cause, even if such animal should escape from him or stray away.
This
liability shall cease only in case, the damage should arise from force
majeure or from the fault of the person who may have suffered it.
ISSUE:
Whether the owner of the animal is liable when
damage is caused to its caretaker.
RULING:
The lower court took the view that under the
above-quoted provision of the Civil Code, the owner of an animal is answerable
only for damages caused to a stranger, and that for damage caused to the
caretaker of the animal the owner would be liable only if he had been negligent
or at fault under article 1902 of the same code. Claiming that the lower court
was in error, counsel for plaintiff contends that the article 1905 does not
distinguish between damage caused to the caretaker and makes the owner liable
whether or not he has been negligent or at fault.
The distinction is important. For the statute names
the possessor or user of the animal as the
person liable for "any damages it may cause," and this for the
obvious reason that the possessor or user has the custody and control of the
animal and is therefore the one in a position to prevent it from causing
damage.
In the present case, the animal was in custody and
under the control of the caretaker, who was paid for his work as such.
Obviously, it was the caretaker's business to try to prevent the animal from
causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured by the
animal under those circumstances, was one of the risks of the occupation which
he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the consequences.
In a decision of the Spanish
Supreme Court, cited by Manresa in his Commentaries (Vol. 12, p. 578), the
death of an employee who was bitten by a feline which his master had asked him
to take to his establishment was by said tribunal declared to be "a veritable accident of
labor" which should come under the labor laws rather than under
article 1905 of the Civil Code. The present action, however, is not brought
under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there being no allegation that, among
other things, defendant's business, whatever that might be, had a gross income
of P20,000. As already stated, defendant's liability is made to rest on article
1905 of the Civil Code but action under that article is not tenable for the
reasons already stated. On
the other hand, if action is to be based on article 1902 of the Civil Code, it
is essential that there be fault or negligence on the part of the defendants as
owners of the animal that caused the damage. But the complaint contains no
allegation on those points.
Lucky Club Casino site - LuckyClub
ReplyDeleteLucky Club Casino is rated 3.2 out of 5 by our luckyclub.live members and 35% of them said: "lucky club casino". A complete listing of casinos owned by Lucky Rating: 3.2 · 33 votes · Free · Game