Case Digest: Afialda vs. Hisole, G.R. No. L-2075, November 29, 1949

Torts and Damages

Reyes, J.:

Facts:

• The deceased, Loreto Afialda, was employed by the defendant spouses Basilio Hisoli and Francisco Hisole as caretaker of their carabaos at a fixed compensation.

• On March 21, 1947, while tending the animals, he was gored by one of them and later died as a consequence of his injuries.

• The mishap was due neither to his own fault nor to force majeure;

• Loreto’s elder sister, Margarita Afialda depending upon him for support, filed an action for damages, 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. NO

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. For authority counsel cites the following opinion which Manresa quotes from a decision of the Spanish Supreme Court:

El articulo 1905 del codigo Civil no consienta otra interpretacion que la que, clara y evidentemente, se deriva de sus terminos literales, bastando, segun el mismo, que un animal cause perjuicio para que nasca la responsibilidad del dueno, aun no imputandose a este ninguna clase de culpa o negligencia, habida,sin duda, cuenta por el lgislador de que tal concepto de dueno es suficiente para que arrastre las consecuencias favorables o adversas de esta clase de propiedad, salvo la exception en el mismo contenida. (12 Manresa, Commentaries on the Spanish CivilCode, 573.)

Translation: Article 1905 of the Civil Code does not allow for any interpretation other than that which clearly and evidently derives from its literal terms. According to it, it is sufficient that an animal causes harm for the owner's liability to arise, even if no fault or negligence is attributed to the owner. The legislator undoubtedly took into account that the concept of ownership is enough for the owner to bear the favorable or adverse consequences of this kind of property, except for the exception contained therein. (12 Manresa, Commentaries on the Spanish Civil Code, 573.)

This opinion, however, appears to have been rendered in a case where an animal caused injury to a stranger or third person. It is therefore no authority for a case like the present where the person injured was the caretaker of the animal. 

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.

There being no reversible error in the order appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, but without costs in view of the financial situation of the appellant.