Article 2183 - 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
damage should come from force majeure or from the fault of the
person who has suffered damage.
Article 2197 Damages may be:
1. Actual or compensatory;
2. Moral;
3. Nominal;
4. Temperate;
5. Liquidated; or
6. Exemplary or corrective
Article 2216 No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary in order that
moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated or exemplary damages may be
adjudicated. The assessment of such damages, except liquidated ones,
is left to the discretion of the court, according to the circumstances of
each case.
FOR PROSECUTION
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. (Vestil vs. IAC, 179
SCRA 48)
The rule generally is that there is no liability where a wrongful act of
the injured person contributed to the injury. Even where warning signs
are posted on the place, the owner of the known bad dog is not to be
exempted from liability to one who is rightfully on the premises. (Burke
vs. Fischer, 298 Ky. 157)
The gist of an action for damages by a vicious dog, whose propensities
are known, is not negligence in the manner of keeping the dog; it is
keeping the dog at all; and, the action is founded upon the theory of

maintenance of a nuisance, not negligence. (Jaco v. Baker, 174 Or 191,

148 P2d 938)
The word damage in these articles comprehends all that are
embraced in its meaning. It includes any and damages that a human
being may suffer in any and all the manifestations of his life: physical
or material, moral or psychological, mental or spiritual, financial,
economic, social, political, religious. (Castro vs. Acro Taxicab Co., 82
Phil 360)
FOR DEFENSE
A person who unnecessarily or without cause or excuse knowingly
places himself within the reach of a wild animal securely fastened
which he knows to be dangerous, he cannot recover for the injury
resulting from an attack by such animal. A plaintiff may also deprive
himself of a right to complain, if notwithstanding warnings given to him
and without the knowledge of the keeper, he exposes himself to be
attacked. (57 Am Jur. 2d pp. 326-27, 329)
Moral Damages may not be awarded if there is no legal basis therof,
nor may it be imposed in substitution of civil indemnity. (People vs.
Maramara, 317 SCRA 222)