AFIADA vs. HISOLE85 Phil 67 Civil Law Torts and Damages
Liability of possessors or users of animals Assumption of
RiskFACTS:Loreto Afialda was a caretaker of the carabaos owned by
Basilio Hisole. In March 1947, without any fault from Afialda or
any force majeure, one of the carabaos gored him thereby causing
his death. Afialdas sister, Margarita Afialda, sued Hisole arguing
that under the Civil Code,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 fromforce majeure
or from the fault of the person who may have suffered it.
ISSUE:Whether or not Hisole is liable in the case at bar as
owner of the carabao which killed Afialda.HELD:No. The law uses the
term possessor and user of the animal. Afialda was the caretaker of
the animal and he was tasked and paid to tend for the carabaos. He,
at the time of the goring, is the possessor and the user of the
carabao and therefore he is the one who had custody and control of
the animal and was in apositiontopreventthe animal from causing
damage. It would have been different had Afialda been a stranger.
Obviously, it was the caretakers business to try topreventthe
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.This action could have been
more appropriately raised in court under the provisions of the
Workmens Compensation Act as the risk involve was one of
occupational hazards.
