Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
KARLOS NOEL ALETA VS. SOFITEL PHILIPPINE PLAZA MANILA, INC., G.R. NO. 228150 (JANUARY 11, 2023): RESTATEMENT OF WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND THE EVIDENTIARY DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR
On February 13, 2009, petitioner Aleta’s parents-in-law, together with his children Carlos Marco and Mario Montego, aged five and three years old, respectively, checked in at the premises of respondent Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila. Petitioner’s mother-in-law, Dr. Marilyn, brought Carlos and Mario at the hotel’s kiddie pool. As Mario was stepping into the pool near the Lifeguard Station, he suddenly slipped which resulted to his head hitting the rugged edge of the pool. He sustained injuries which caused his head to bleed. Meanwhile, Carlos mounted the kiddie pool slide and thereafter bumped his head. He sustained a contusion, which likewise caused his head to bleed. After Dr. Marilyn applied first-aid, the children were brought to the hotel’s clinic for treatment. Petitioner demanded compensation from the hotel which the latter denied. Four months later, Carlos started having seizures and was admitted at the Medical City and subjected to laboratory diagnostics and EEG which caused petitioner to incur added expenses.
Since petitioner Aleta’s demand went unheeded, he filed a Complaint for Damages against the hotel before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City. The trial court, however, dismissed the same on the ground of his supposed failure to substantiate the allegations. The RTC affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner Aleta’s Petition for Review and the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Hence, petitioner Aleta filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the ruling of the Court of Appeals. Citing the old but leading cases of Taylor vs. Manila Electric Railroad and Light Co., 16 Phil. 8 (1910) and Hidalgo Enterprises vs. Balandan, 91 Phil 488 (1952), the Supreme Court held that “one who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises.”
The Supreme Court held that a swimming pool, just like any body of water, is not an attractive nuisance per se. However, in this case, the two slides installed with slopes ending at the kiddie pool formed an unusual condition or artificial feature intended to attract children:
“Here, the records show that there were two slides installed with slopes ending at the kiddie pool. Taking Hidalgo into consideration, although the swimming pool alone may not be considered as an attractive nuisance, the kiddie pool’s close proximity to the slides formed an unusual condition or artificial feature intended to attract children. In other words, the installation of the slides with slopes ending over the swimming pool’s waters makes it an attractive nuisance. By this reason, respondent was duty bound to undertake protective measures to ensure the children’s safety. It was respondent’s responsibility to guarantee that appropriate safeguards were in place within the attractive nuisance in order to protect children against the injury from unknown or unseen dangers.” (Italics mine)
The Supreme Court likewise applies the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur or which translates to “the thing or the traction speaks for itself.” The Court explained that it is not another source of obligation or a substantive principle of law but merely evidentiary or procedural in nature. It is regarded as a mode of proof, of a mere procedural convenience since it furnishes a substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff of the burden of producing specific proof of negligence. Applied in the instant case, negligence, while is not generally presumed and should be proven by direct evidence, mere injury of the children, taken with the surrounding circumstances, warrants an inference that the injury was caused by respondent hotel’s negligence.
The Supreme Court restated the requisites for res ipsa loquitur to apply, to wit: ( 1) the accident is of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not have happened except for the defendant’s negligence; (2) the accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive management or control of the person charged with the negligence complained of; and (3) the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured. In finding all the requisites present, the Court held:
“To begin with, it is undisputed that petitioner’s children sustained their injuries while playing within the pool’s premises-an instrumentality within respondent’s exclusive management and control.
Further, by reason of the swimming pool’s nature as an attractive nuisance, respondent is duty bound to guarantee that it had installed sufficient precautionary measures to ensure the safety of its guests, particularly the children. The establishment of these safeguards should have prevented the incident. Accordingly, it could be inferred that petitioner’s children would not have sustained their injuries were it not for respondent’s negligence.
No contributory negligence can likewise be imputed against the children. Children, by nature, are enthusiastically inquisitive towards different places and objects, such as pools with slides. By reason of their ‘childish instincts and impulses’ it is expected that they will be drawn to such places to play, unaware of the dangers present within their immediate vicinity.
Having established the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, there exists a presumption that respondent acted negligently. Hence, the burden is shifted to respondent to prove that it had taken sufficient precautionary measures. The presumption may be rebutted upon proof that it exercised due care and prudence.
Respondent refutes their liability by insisting that it posted safety rules in conspicuous places around and within the pool area. However, as the Court of Appeals correctly noted, ‘the signs purportedly merely stated the appropriate legal age of pool guests[,]’ which could not have prevented the occurrence of the incident.
Likewise, the presence of lifeguards during the incident cannot relieve respondent from its liability. While it was established that there were lifeguards at the time of the incident, the lifeguards admitted that they failed to stop the children from using the pool: x x x” (Italics mine)
The Supreme Court awarded temperate, exemplary, and moral damages as well as Attorney’s Fees in favor of petitioner Aleta. The Court found negligence on the part of the respondent by its failure to prevent the children from using the swimming pool being the proximate cause of the injuries they sustained. The Court held that by maintaining an attractive nuisance in its premises, it is respondent’s responsibility to ensure that necessary precautions are in place to prevent children from being harmed.