If you are looking for an example of a legal opinion, you can follow the format in the sample below. Just like in any kind of writing, there are no hard and fast rules in drafting a legal opinion. Each lawyer will have to find his own style and voice in delivering his opinion to a client. In order to develop this, one must be a wide reader and a constant writer.
April 14, 2018
MR. PETER BANAG 48 Mabini Street, Brgy. Centro
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
Re: CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AGAINST ARTHUR SISON
Dear Mr. Banag:
Thank you for meeting with me and seeking my counsel on what possible action you may take to claim damages against Mr. Arthur Sison. I will provide you with my legal opinion and analysis so you may make a qualified decision regarding the possible charges you may file against Mr. Sison. I would like to first restate the facts, as I have understood them from your narration, to confirm their accuracy. I will then proceed with an explanation of applicable laws and case rulings applicable to your case. Lastly, I will give you my opinion on whether filing a case against Mr. Sison for damages is the best recourse to take.
On September 12, the day of the incident, at about 3 o’clock in the afternoon (3:00PM), your daughter, Mary Banag, about six years old, went to Arthur Sison’s house to buy ice-candy. Mary knocked on the gate which was closed at that time. However, no one answered to her knocks because Mr. Sison was sleeping at that time. Mary then tested if the gate will open the gate by pushing it. When the gate opened, Mr. Sison’s dog jumped outside where it proceeded to run after Mary, attacking her from behind, and biting her on the leg and arms as she fell to the ground. It was at this time that Mr. Fred Puzon, a neighbor, saw Mary being bitten by the dog. He hurried towards them, kicked the dog, and protected Mary. It was at this point in time that Mr. Sison woke up, having heard the commotion outside with someone shouting that his dog had bitten and attacked Mary. He immediately went outside his house, placed his dog back in his yard and brought Mary to a nearby clinic to treat her wounds and thereafter, paid the medical bills. You asked Mr. Sison to pay Mary P20,000 in damages for what happened but all he did was replied with a letter which said that he cannot grant your demand because he was not at fault. Mr. Sison claimed the following as his basis:
1. There was a warning sign at the gate which says that there was a dog inside, which implies that if Mary obeyed the sign, she would not have been bitten by the dog.
2. During that afternoon, she was alone by herself without an adult to accompany her, implying that you as a parent was irresponsible for letting her outside of your house unaccompanied which exposed her to untoward incidents.
3. That he already paid for the Mary’s treatment and medication.
Clearly, the main issue here is whether or not Mr. Sison is liable to pay Mary for damages. In my opinion, Mr. Sison is indeed liable for damages despite his defenses. Firstly, what happened to Mary is classified as a quasi-delict, defined by Article 2176 of the Civil Code:
"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."
The nature of Mr. Sison’s liability, on the other hand, is governed by the provisions of Article 2183 of the Civil Code, which provides:
"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 damages should come from force majeure from the fault of the person who has suffered damage."
In the case of Vestil v. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 74431, 179 SCRA 47), the Supreme Court had the occasion to say:
"According to Manresa, the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code is not based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the possessor or user of the animal causing the damage. It is based on natural equity and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses animals for his utility, pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such animal may cause."
Even if Mr. Sison insists that the incident was brought about by contributory negligence on Mary’s part as he had already claimed in his letter, or that there was also negligence on your part as a parent by letting Mary outside your house unaccompanied, which is the proximate cause of her injuries, even if he was also negligent by not locking the gate before he went inside his house for his afternoon siesta. Both of these situations are governed by Article 2179 of the Civil Code, which provides:
"When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded."
In the first situation, the Supreme Court ruled in Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 129792, 321 SCRA 375) that “a child under nine years of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law” is applicable to Mary who is only six years old. With this pronouncement, the notion of contributory negligence on Mary’s part is now non-existent.
As for the second situation, the case of Umali v. Bacani (G.R. No. L-40570, 69 SCRA 263) is applicable. Here, the Supreme Court had the chance to elucidate that parental negligence in allowing a young child to go outside of the house alone may, at most, qualify only as contributory negligence. It is provided in the second sentence of Article 2179 that the even if there was contributory negligence by the plaintiff, he may still recover damages from the defendant, the amount of the award to be mitigated by the courts.
Since Mr. Sison is the owner of the dog that bit and attacked your daughter Mary, he is clearly liable for damages after taking all his possible defenses into consideration. If he was not negligent as to overlook the precautionary measure of locking the gate before going to sleep that afternoon, there would have been no possibility of the dog getting out of the yard and biting Mary. In the case of Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals (GR No. 116896, May 5, 1977), negligence is the failure to observe the degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, for the protection of the interests of another person. The act of locking the gate was an act of due care, precaution and vigilance, which Mr. Sison as a responsible dog owner, should have done. In his letter, he said that he normally locked the gate but since he was going to sleep, and knowing that his children would go in and out during the day. What could be concluded is that Mr. Sison did not lock the gate that afternoon because he did not want his afternoon nap to be disturbed when his children would want to come in the house. At the very least, he could have put his dog on a leash to make his premises safe for his customers who regularly buy ice candy from him.
Mary could have pushed on the gate with all her strength and it wouldn’t have opened. Since the gate was locked and could not be opened by Mary, she should not have been attacked by Mr. Sison’s dog. Of course, Mr. Sison may say that paying Mary’s medical bill should be enough. However, Section 5 of R.A. 9482, also known as the Anti-Rabies Act of 2007, provides that:
"All pet owners shall be required to: … (f) Assist the dog bite victim immediately and shoulder the medical expenses incurred and other incidental expenses relative to the victim’s injuries."
Mr. Sison is mandated by law as a pet owner, to pay medical expenses incurred by Mary as a result of his dog’s attack. The payment of the medical expenses does not cover the moral damages that Mary is entitled to under Article 2219 (2) of the Civil Code, which specifically pertains to quasi-delicts causing physical injuries. As previously mentioned, the only reprieve due him would be a mitigation of his liability. Besides, I hereby express my opinion, based on the laws and the jurisprudence applicable to your situation, that should you pursue a case for damages against Mr. Sison it will surely be decided in your favor.
Very truly yours,
ATTY. SEBASTIAN GABRIEL
Comments