G.R. No. 176947 - Cordora vs. Commission on Elections

Plaintiff-appellant Margarita Afialda filed an action for damages against defendants-appellees Basilio Hisole and Francisco Hisole.
The claim arose due to injuries suffered by Loreto Afialda, the plaintiff’s deceased brother, who was employed by the defendants as a caretaker of their carabaos for a fixed compensation.
On March 21, 1947, while tending the carabaos, Loreto was gored by one of the animals and subsequently died as a result of the injuries.
The complaint alleged that the injury was not due to Loreto’s own fault nor due to force majeure.
Plaintiff, as the elder sister and heir dependent on Loreto for support, sought damages.

Before filing their answer, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of a cause of action.
The lower court granted the dismissal.
Plaintiff appealed the decision.

Plaintiff rested her claim on Article 1905 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which states:

"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."
Liability ceases only if damage arises from force majeure or the fault of the injured person.

The issue is whether this provision holds the owner liable for injuries to the caretaker of the animal.

Plaintiff argued that Article 1905 imposes strict liability on the owner regardless of negligence or fault and without distinction between victims being strangers or caretakers.
Plaintiff cited an opinion from a Spanish Supreme Court decision quoted by Manresa, which interprets Article 1905 as imposing liability on the owner "even not imputing any kind of fault or negligence" to him.
The lower court disagreed, reasoning that Article 1905 is meant to protect strangers from damages caused by animals and that for injury to the caretaker, liability depends on fault or negligence under Article 1902.
The court emphasized that the caretaker had custody and control of the animal and that injury was an assumed occupational risk.
The court also referenced a Spanish Supreme Court decision where death from an animal bite in the course of employment was deemed a work accident, thus covered by labor laws and not under Article 1905.
The case at bar was not brought under the workmen’s compensation law.
The complaint had no allegations of negligence or fault by defendants, so liability under Article 1902 could not stand.

Whether the owner or possessor of an animal is strictly liable under Article 1905 of the Civil Code for injuries caused by the animal to its caretaker.
Whether Article 1905 applies to injuries sustained by a person employed to care for the animal, or is limited to damages caused to strangers.
Whether the defendants can be held liable without allegation or proof of fault or negligence under Article 1902 of the Civil Code.