A spokeswoman for Tencent said on Tuesday that the Internet company will keep its word and pay the costs of keeping hundreds of dogs saved from slaughter two years ago by animal rights campaigners.

The pledge was made in a Beijing court, where Tencent and the China Small Animal Protection Association were defendants in a lawsuit lodged by 10 hospitals that had treated the rescued animals.

A severely ill dog receives treatment at a pet hospital in Beijing in April 2011. It was among more than 500 dogs rescued by animal lovers from a truck transporting the animals bound for a restaurant menu. Lin Hui / For China Daily

The case stems from an incident on April 15, 2011, when volunteers for the association spotted a truck loaded with more than 500 dogs on the Beijing-Harbin expressway.

After alerts were posted on Tencent's micro-blogging service, the truck was forced to stop when more than 10 volunteers rushed to the Tongzhou section of the highway and blocked the vehicle from moving for more than 15 hours.

The dogs had been headed for slaughterhouses in Changchun, Jilin province.

After negotiations with the driver, pet service provider Leepet Holding Corp and the philanthropic Shangshan Foundation purchased the animals for 115,000 yuan ($18,790).

To encourage more care and attention for the charitable action, Sun Zhonghuai, vice-president of Tencent, said on his micro blog on April 16 that the company would take care of the dogs after being rescued.

Volunteers delivered some of the dogs to the headquarters of the animal protection association, where they were given medical care while waiting for adoption.

However, the bills from the event remained a headache.

Though the association paid the hospitals 4,695 yuan and Tencent paid 500,000 yuan for treatment fees in 2011, they still failed to cover all the costs.

Ten hospitals later sued the association and Tencent, requesting they pay another 500,000 yuan.

Who should take responsibility for the voluntary behavior fueled heated discussion at court.

The plaintiffs claimed that the behavior of the association in accepting the animals constituted a declaration of ownership.

However, the association argued that they did this out of kindness, not ownership.

Another key issue is whether the promise made by the social network has legal effect.

"Philanthropic promises are irrevocable and should be carried out," said Zhu Shuilin, attorney for the association.

However, the attorney for Tencent said that there is no legal basis to ask the company to pay the bill.

"Though the vice-president made a statement online, my party did not reach an agreement with the plaintiffs. Directly asking for payment based on such a statement has no legal basis," said Chen Guangyu, the attorney for Tencent.

However, Liu Sishan, a spokeswoman for Tencent, said that the company would keep its promise, but needed a more detailed and trustworthy bill provided by the plaintiffs, as some of the invoices or receipts are not valid.

"This is not a case about ownership or a legal promise, but about how philanthropy can be carried out in a more organized and rational way," she said. "We wish society cared more about those who need help, but we also urge a more transparent and regulated environment for charity."

A judgment has not yet been reached in court, but both plaintiffs and defendants agreed on mediation by the court.