Case Name: Milagros Ibardo v. Pelagia Nava, et al. (CA) GR No. 28587-R Date: 8 January 1963
By: Caro, Monica Celine A. Topic: Strict Liability – Pet Pet Owner
FACTS
1. Plaintiff Milagros Ibardo, a minor, needed to have a foot-wound treated at Tomasa Nava’s house. To get there, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Milagros needed to pass through defendant Pelagia Nava’s yard. Milagros found the gate open but, instead of entering immediately, she asked Pelagia, who was near the gate, if the dog in the premises would bite her. Pelagia assured assu red Milagros that it wouldn’t, Milagros entered, the dog bit her. Milagros’ testimony was corroborated by Juana Gil, who was getting camote tops from Gorgonia Ibardo’s (Milagros’ mother) yard just across Pelagia’s yard. Pelagia tried to discredit Milagros’ Milagros’ testimony through the testimony of her daughter and son-in-law, co-defendants; and of the vice barrio lieutenant, Serafin Lancaon, who said that Milagros admitted that the dog that bit her was chained near the copra kiln, and that her mother told her what and how to testify. Defendants also claimed that Milagros didn’t mention that there was another path to Tomasa’s house (inconsequential, because the Pelagia yard was the most commonly used path). The CFI ruled in favor of Milagros.
ISSUE W/N Nava is liable? YES. HELD The credibility of a witness must be judged from her testimony as a whole and the manner in which it is given. The CFI found that the Nava witnesses’ testimonies were tainted with partiality, including Serafin’s, who was clearly not telling tell ing the truth, based on his demeanor. On the other hand, Milagros answered questions directly, unhesitatingly, and clearly.
The trial judge is in the best position to determine whether or not a witness may be trusted; his findings of fact may not be disturbed unless: Some facts or circumstances of weight had been overlooked; The significance of such have been misinterpreted; The conclusion is inconsistent with the findings; or There is inherent weakness in the evidence upon which the conclusion is based. Art. 2183 of the Civil Code provides for the liability of the defendants. Under said provision, the possessor or user if an animal is liable for the damage caused by such animal, even if it was not due to the possessor or user’s fault or negligence. The on ly exception is if the damage caused by the animal is due to force majeure or the injured party herself. What is essential is the determination of who possesses or uses the animal; ownership is inconsequential. It is undisputed here that the defendants exercised joint control of their yard and made use of the dog to guard the copra. They are the joint possessors of the dog, and are thus solidarily liable for the damage it caused. Even if it was established that Melecio Servino, Pelagia’s son -in-law, was the dog’s owner, Pelagia would still be liable because the dog was kept on her premises with her knowledge and consent, and she made use of it. Doctrine Notes Art. 2183 of the Civil Code provides for the liability of the defendants. Under said provision, the possessor or user if an animal is liable for the damage caused by such animal, even if it was not due to the possessor or user’s fault or negligence. The only exception is if the damage caused by the animal is due to force majeure or the injured party herself. What is essential is the determination of who possesses or uses the animal; ownership is inconsequential. It is undisputed here that the defendants exercised joint control of their yard and made use of the dog to guard the copra. They are the joint possessors of the dog, and are thus solidarily liable for the damage it caused.
