What cases could pet crematorium owners face over dumped animal remains?

MANILA — The owners of a pet crematorium in Bacoor, Cavite could face multiple criminal and administrative complaints, including estafa, sanitation violations and consumer protection violations, following the discovery of their clients’ animal remains in a vacant lot in Bulacan, the Philippine Animal Welfare Society said.

PAWS executive director Atty. Anna Cabrera told ABS-CBN News that they are preparing an estafa complaint against Ahjay Paws Aftercare after finding that pet owners who paid for cremation services were allegedly given urns containing ashes even though their animals had not been cremated.

The remains of at least 25 pets were found in a vacant lot in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. Their owners were able to identify the animals and establish their transactions with the crematorium, Cabrera said.

She said the owners could be held personally criminally liable, alongside the company, while affected customers may also pursue civil claims for damages.

Cabrera identified estafa as the primary criminal complaint against the crematorium’s owners.

She said pet owners were allegedly deceived into paying for cremation services that were never performed.

“[T]hey were led to believe that they were paying for something na matatanggap nila. That’s what prompted them to part with their money. So there was fraud,” Cabrera said.

She added investigators would need to establish that the crematorium misrepresented its services and had no intention of carrying out the promised cremation.

The absence of cremation equipment at the facility and the lack of documentation tracing each animal from turnover until supposed cremation could also help establish the alleged deception, she said.

Under Article 315, as amended by Republic Act No. 10951, the penalty for estafa depends on the amount involved.

For fraud involving P40,000 or less, the penalty under the applicable provisions is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, or two months and one day to six months of imprisonment.

For amounts exceeding P40,000 but not exceeding P1.2 million, the penalty is arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or four months and one day to two years and four months.

Cabrera said each affected pet owner’s transaction could constitute a separate count of estafa because their circumstances and payments were distinct.

Pet owners’ transactions involved P6,000 to P12,000 per client, falling under the lowest penalty bracket for estafa. 

“Still, we have to appreciate that these several counts… it’s all going to be taken as a separate count. Because each of the fur parents had unique circumstances to their case,” she said. 

PAWS is also looking into whether the alleged scheme could qualify as syndicated estafa, although Cabrera said the group has yet to determine whether the legal requirements are met.

Under Presidential Decree No. 1689, syndicated estafa involves a scheme carried out by a syndicate of at least five people, with the additional requirement that the fraud involves the misappropriation of funds contributed by members of specified institutions or funds solicited by corporations or associations from the general public.

Cabrera said investigators are still reviewing documents submitted by individual pet owners to determine whether the case meets these requirements.

She said PAWS believes the elements of simple estafa by deceit are already present.

Under PD 1689, the prescribed penalty is life imprisonment since the Philippines no longer has the death penalty.

The involvement of five or more people alone does not automatically establish syndicated estafa. 

The crematorium’s owners could also face complaints for violating sanitation regulations after animal remains were allegedly dumped in an open vacant lot.

Cabrera said PAWS was informed that the dumping violated both the provincial sanitation code of Bulacan and the city-specific sanitation regulations.

Under Presidential Decree No. 856, or the Code on Sanitation of the Philippines, dead animals are classified as refuse and require proper disposal.

The same decree considers animal carcasses that pose health risks and the accumulation of refuse as nuisances. 

It also requires establishment owners, managers and operators to secure sanitary permits and keep their premises clean.

Violations of provisions without a separate specified penalty may carry imprisonment of up to six months, a fine of up to P1,000, or both, depending on the court’s discretion.

Local sanitation ordinances may also provide their own penalties. 

PAWS also cited possible violations of Republic Act No. 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, in connection with the dumping of the animal remains.

The law prohibits certain forms of dumping and improper waste disposal under Section 48, with corresponding penalties under Section 49.

However, the specific provision applicable to the incident would depend on how the remains and the disposal activity are classified under the law and its implementing rules.

For example, Section 48(1) prohibits throwing or dumping waste in public places and allows a fine of P300 to P1,000 or community service of one to 15 days, or both, upon conviction.

Other prohibited waste disposal activities carry different penalties, depending on the specific violation.

PAWS is also calling on the Department of Trade and Industry to investigate possible violations of Republic Act No. 7394, or the Consumer Act of the Philippines.

Cabrera said pet owners were led to believe they were paying for a legitimate cremation service but allegedly did not receive what the company had promised.

Under Article 50 of the Consumer Act, deceptive sales practices include false representations or fraudulent manipulation that induce consumers to avail of a product or service.

If established, a violation of the law’s provisions on deceptive sales practices carries a fine of P500 to P10,000, imprisonment of five months to one year, or both, upon conviction.

The law also allows courts to issue injunctions and award actual damages to consumers harmed by deceptive practices.

Separately, Article 102 provides remedies for defective services, including reimbursement of the amount paid, without prejudice to claims for losses and damages. 

Cabrera said PAWS wants government agencies to require pet crematoriums to maintain proper documentation and video records of every animal they claim to have cremated.

Aside from criminal complaints, Cabrera said affected pet owners may also seek civil damages for the financial, emotional and psychological harm they allegedly suffered.

She said PAWS is considering pursuing moral and exemplary damages on behalf of the affected customers.

She noted that the Bacoor city government has closed down Ahjay Paws Aftercare because it “didn’t have a permit to operate a crematorium [and] was only for viewing services or for holding wakes for the pet.”

Cabrera said the company had nevertheless represented itself as a crematorium through its signages, letterheads and social media advertisements.

She added that the owners could be held personally liable, alongside the company.

“It can be both. Also civil damages as a result of all the damage that all the pet owners have experienced. We can also ask for that moral and exemplary damages because of the trauma that they have suffered,” she said.

The crematorium could also face administrative sanctions over questions surrounding its authority to operate cremation services.

Cabrera said the Bacoor City government had closed the facility after finding that its permit covered viewing services or pet wakes, rather than cremation operations.

However, she noted that the establishment had advertised itself as a crematorium.

Despite calls from animal welfare advocates for charges over the alleged disrespectful handling of the pets’ remains, Cabrera clarified that the Animal Welfare Act does not cover animals after they have died.

She said the law specifically governs the treatment of living animals and prohibits acts such as torture, maltreatment and neglect.

However, she said authorities could still investigate possible Animal Welfare Act violations if evidence emerges that the animals were abused or maltreated while alive.

Cabrera said PAWS is gathering documentary evidence from affected customers, including receipts and other records of their transactions with Ahjay Paws Aftercare.

The organization is also coordinating with animal welfare groups like Luna and the Furry Siblings, which are conducting ground-level evidence gathering and investigation.

PAWS said it would assist affected pet owners in pursuing estafa complaints and provide free legal assistance.

Cabrera said the pet owners who have approached the organization are seeking justice rather than reimbursement.

“They’re not interested in any remuneration or reimbursement. They just want justice for their pets,” she said.