Afialda vs. Hisole

The liability imposed by Article 1905 of the Civil Code on the possessor or user of an animal for damages it causes does not extend to injuries suffered by the animal's caretaker, because the caretaker, having custody and control of the animal, is the one in a position to prevent it from causing damage, and injury from the animal is a risk of the occupation voluntarily assumed.

The case involves the application of Article 1905 of the Civil Code, which makes the possessor or user of an animal liable for damages it causes, subject only to the exceptions of force majeure or the fault of the person who suffered the damage. The plaintiff sought to invoke this provision against the owners of carabaos whose caretaker was killed by one of the animals. The lower court distinguished between damage caused to a stranger and damage caused to the caretaker, holding that the latter scenario requires proof of negligence or fault under Article 1902 of the same code.

Margarita Afialda, the plaintiff-appellant, filed an action for damages arising from the death of her brother, Loreto Afialda. The complaint alleged that Loreto was employed by the defendant spouses, Basilio Hisole and Francisco Hisole, as caretaker of their carabaos at a fixed compensation. On March 21, 1947, while tending the animals, Loreto was gored by one of them and later died as a consequence of his injuries. The complaint further alleged that the mishap was due neither to his own fault nor to force majeure, and that the plaintiff, as his elder sister and heir, depended upon him for support.

Before filing their answer, the defendants moved for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of a cause of action. The lower court granted the motion, taking the view that under Article 1905 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. The plaintiff appealed, contending that Article 1905 does not distinguish between damage caused to a caretaker and makes the owner liable whether or not he has been negligent or at fault.

• Application of Article 1905: The plaintiff argued that Article 1905 of the Civil Code does not distinguish between damage caused to a caretaker and a stranger, and that the owner is liable whether or not he has been negligent or at fault. She cited the opinion of Manresa quoting a decision of the Spanish Supreme Court, which stated that Article 1905 admits no other interpretation than that derived from its literal terms, and that it suffices that an animal causes damage for the owner's liability to arise, even without any imputation of fault or negligence.

N/A — The decision does not recount the respondents' specific arguments beyond their motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action.

• Liability to Caretaker: Whether the owner of an animal is liable under Article 1905 of the Civil Code when damage is caused to the animal's caretaker.

• Liability to Caretaker: No. Article 1905 of the Civil Code does not apply where the person injured is the caretaker of the animal, because the caretaker, not the owner, had custody and control of the animal. Liability under Article 1902 would require allegations of fault or negligence, which the complaint did not contain.

• Liability to Caretaker: The Court reasoned that Article 1905 names the possessor or user of the animal as the person liable for "any damages it may cause" 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 this case, the animal was in the custody and under the control of the caretaker, who was paid for his work as such. It was the caretaker's business to try to prevent the animal from causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself. 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. The Court also noted that the Spanish Supreme Court decision cited by Manresa, which the plaintiff relied upon, was rendered in a case where an animal caused injury to a stranger or third person, and was therefore no authority for a case where the person injured was the caretaker. The Court further observed that in a decision of the Spanish Supreme Court cited by Manresa, the death of an employee bitten by a feline which his master had asked him to take to his establishment was declared to be "a veritable accident of labor" which should come under the labor laws rather than under Article 1905. However, the present action was not brought under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there being no allegation that the defendants' business had a gross income of P20,000. Since the action was based on Article 1905, it was not tenable; and if the action were to be based on Article 1902, it would be essential to allege fault or negligence on the part of the defendants, which the complaint did not do.

• Liability of possessor or user of an animal (Article 1905, Civil Code) — The possessor or user of an animal is liable for damages it causes, even if the animal escapes or strays, unless the damage arises from force majeure or the fault of the person who suffered it. The rationale is that the possessor or user has custody and control of the animal and is in a position to prevent it from causing damage. The Court held that this liability does not extend to the animal's caretaker, who has custody and control of the animal and assumes the risk of injury as an incident of the occupation.

• Assumption of risk in employment — An employee who is injured by an animal under his care is deemed to have voluntarily assumed the risk of such injury as part of his occupation. The Court applied this principle to hold that the caretaker's death was a risk of his employment, for which he must take the consequences, rather than a basis for liability under Article 1905.

• "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." — This passage articulates the rationale behind Article 1905 and is central to the Court's reasoning that the caretaker, not the owner, is the proper subject of liability under the provision.

• "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." — This passage states the Court's application of the assumption of risk principle to the facts, forming the basis for denying recovery under Article 1905.

• Spanish Supreme Court decision cited in Manresa's Commentaries (Vol. 12, p. 573) — Cited by the plaintiff as authority for the proposition that Article 1905 imposes liability on the owner regardless of fault. The Court distinguished this case, noting that it involved injury to a stranger or third person, not a caretaker.

• Spanish Supreme Court decision cited in Manresa's Commentaries (Vol. 12, p. 578) — Cited by the Court for the proposition that the death of an employee bitten by a feline which his master had asked him to take to his establishment was "a veritable accident of labor" falling under labor laws rather than Article 1905. The Court noted that the present action was not brought under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

• Article 1905, Civil Code — Provides that the possessor of an animal, or the one who uses it, is liable for any damages it may cause, even if the animal escapes or strays, with liability ceasing only in case of force majeure or the fault of the person who suffered the damage. The Court held that this provision does not apply where the injured party is the animal's caretaker.

• Article 1902, Civil Code — Provides for liability for damages caused by fault or negligence. The Court noted that an action under this provision would require allegations of fault or negligence on the part of the defendants, which the complaint did not contain.

Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Paras, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor and Torres, JJ., concurred.

N/A — No dissenting opinions are noted in the decision.