In the Philippines, the legal framework governing dog bites is primarily rooted in the Civil Code and supplemented by special laws like the Anti-Rabies Act of 2007 (Republic Act No. 9482). When a dog bites a human, the law leans heavily toward protecting the victim, but the presence of specific factors—such as whether the victim was a trespasser or a minor—significantly alters the landscape of liability and available defenses.

The Doctrine of Strict Liability

The foundational rule for animal attacks is found in Article 2183 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which states:

"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 him who has suffered damage."

Under this provision, liability is strict. This means the victim does not need to prove that the owner was negligent or knew the dog was vicious. The mere fact that the dog caused harm is enough to hold the owner or possessor liable, unless a specific legal defense is proven.

Cases Involving Trespassers: The "Fault of the Victim" Defense

The most common defense against a dog bite claim is that the injury resulted from the fault of the victim. This is where the status of a trespasser becomes critical.

1. The Right to Exclude

Under Philippine property law, an owner has the right to exclude others from their property. If a person enters a private compound without invitation or legal justification, they assume a certain degree of risk.

2. Absence of Liability

If a dog bites a trespasser who has scaled a fence or ignored "Beware of Dog" signs to enter a private residence, the owner can argue that the damage arose solely from the victim's fault. In such cases, the owner is generally not held liable because the victim’s unlawful act (trespassing) was the proximate cause of the injury.

3. Limits to the Defense

However, this defense is not absolute. The owner may still be held liable if:

Gross Negligence: The owner set a "trap" or used a dog with the specific intent to inflict lethal or excessive harm on even a petty trespasser.
Public Access: The area, while private, was open to the public (e.g., a store front) and no warnings were posted.

Cases Involving Minors: The "Tender Years" Doctrine

When the victim is a minor, the legal dynamics shift significantly. Philippine jurisprudence often applies principles that protect children who may lack the capacity to understand danger.

1. Capacity for Negligence

A child of "tender years" (generally under nine years old, or older but lacking discernment) is legally deemed incapable of "contributory negligence" in the same way an adult is. If a toddler wanders into a neighbor’s yard and is bitten, the owner cannot easily claim the child was "at fault" for trespassing, as the child lacks the mental capacity to understand the concept of property boundaries or the danger posed by an animal.

2. The Responsibility of the Owner vs. the Parent

Owner’s Burden: The owner of the dog is expected to exercise a higher degree of diligence if they know children are frequently nearby.
Contributory Negligence of Parents: While the child might not be "at fault," the owner may argue that the parents were negligent in their supervision (Art. 2179, Civil Code). If parental negligence contributed to the incident, the court may mitigate (reduce) the damages the owner is required to pay, though it rarely absolves the owner of liability entirely.

Republic Act No. 9482: The Anti-Rabies Act

In addition to civil damages, dog owners face statutory obligations under the Anti-Rabies Act of 2007. This law imposes specific duties that, if violated, make a defense even harder to mount:

Registration and Vaccination: Owners must have their dogs vaccinated and registered.
Control and Leashing: Owners must not allow their dogs to roam the streets without a leash.
Liability for Expenses: The law explicitly states that if a dog bites someone, the owner must assist the victim and shoulder the medical expenses (post-exposure prophylaxis and vaccines).

Crucially, R.A. 9482 does not distinguish between a trespasser and a lawful visitor regarding the immediate obligation to provide medical assistance. An owner may be fined or even face criminal charges if they refuse to pay for the rabies shots of a victim, regardless of whether the victim was trespassing.

Summary of Defenses

To escape or reduce liability in the Philippines, a dog owner must prove one of the following:

Force Majeure: An inevitable, unforeseeable event (e.g., an earthquake destroys a fence, allowing a dog to escape).
Sole Fault of the Victim: The victim provoked the dog, hit it, or was a trespasser whose presence triggered the attack.
Third-Party Provocateur: A third person (not the owner) provoked the dog into biting the victim.
Exercise of Diligence (Limited): While strict liability applies, proving that the dog was always leashed, fenced, and warned against can help in mitigating moral or exemplary damages.

Conclusion

In the Philippine context, the law favors the victim to ensure public safety and animal control. While trespassing serves as a potent defense against adult claims, it is significantly weakened when the victim is a minor. Furthermore, the mandatory provisions of the Anti-Rabies Act ensure that regardless of the civil "fault," the owner remains responsible for the immediate medical welfare of the injured party.