Case Summary (G.R. No. 228150)
Procedural History and Scope of Review
The Metropolitan Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, and Court of Appeals unanimously found petitioner failed to prove negligence or causal nexus. Under Rule 45, the Supreme Court reviews only errors of law but may review factual findings under the grave-abuse-of-discretion exception.
Factual Background of the Incident
On February 13, 2009, petitioner’s children accompanied their grandparents-in-law to Sofitel’s kiddie pool. Mario slipped near the lifeguard station and sustained a head laceration on the pool’s rugged edge; Carlos incurred a contusion from bumping his head after using the slide. Both were treated on site; Carlos later experienced seizures necessitating MRI and EEG at Medical City.
Theories of Liability Invoked
Petitioner relied on (a) negligence under the Civil Code; (b) attractive nuisance doctrine given the slides adjoining the pool; and (c) res ipsa loquitur to shift the burden of proof to respondent.
Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance Applied
Although bodies of water alone are not typically attractive nuisances, the installation of two slides ending directly into the kiddie pool created an artificial feature likely to draw children. As owner of the premises, respondent owed a duty to implement reasonable safeguards against hidden dangers.
Application of Res Ipsa Loquitur
The accident occurred within respondent’s exclusive control (pool and slide), was of a character unlikely absent negligence, and involved minors incapable of appreciating the hazard. Thus, negligence is inferred and the burden shifts to respondent to prove the exercise of due care.
Findings on Negligence and Causal Nexus
Respondent’s lifeguards admitted observing but not preventing the children’s use of the pool despite rules barring sub-12 guests. Warning signs only stated age limits and did not avert the accident. No evidence showed contributory negligence by the children. The lack of adequate safety measures constituted the proximate cause of injury.
Supreme Court’s Conclusion on Liability
Invoking the attractive nuisance and res ipsa loquitur doctrines, the Court held respondent liable for
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 228150)
Facts of the Case
- On February 13, 2009, Attorney Bonifacio A. Alentajan and Dr. Marilyn C. Alentajan checked in at Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila, accompanied by their grandchildren Carlos (5 years old) and Mario (3 years old).
- Later that day, Dr. Marilyn brought the children to the hotel’s kiddie pool. As Mario stepped into the pool near the lifeguard station, he slipped and hit his head on the rugged edge, causing a head laceration.
- Carlos climbed the kiddie-pool slide, bumped his head on its structure, and sustained a contusion with bleeding.
- First aid was administered by Karlos and Dr. Marilyn; both children were subsequently treated at the hotel’s clinic by the on-site physician.
- On February 25, 2009, Karlos sent a demand letter to Sofitel’s manager for compensation; Sofitel denied liability on April 15, 2009.
- In June 2009, Carlos began experiencing seizures, was hospitalized at Medical City, and underwent laboratory diagnostics, MRI, and EEG, incurring expenses to his father.
Procedural History
- Karlos filed a Complaint for Damages before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), alleging Sofitel’s negligence and identifying hazards in the kiddie-pool area:
- Invisible pool steps near the lifeguard station
- Jagged pool edges capable of cutting soft tissue
- Obscured age-limit warning signs due to plant cover
- Unbarriered slides ending in the kiddie pool that created an attractive lure
- Lifeguard on duty failed to prevent children from accessing the slide
- Relief prayed: ₱50,000 actual damages; ₱100,000 moral; ₱50,000 exemplary; ₱50,000 attorney’s fees.
- Sofitel’s Answer denied cause of action, insisted the accident was unavoidable, and asserted lack of guest authorization.
- MTC dismissed the complaint for failure to prove proximate cause and unauthorized use of facilities. Motion for reconsideration denied on August 1, 2011.
- On appeal, the Regional Tri