Aleta v. Sofitel

 

Aleta v. Sofitel

G.R. 228150

January 11, 2023

 

FACTS:

                Atty. Bonifacio Alentajan and Dr. Marilyn Alentajan, herein petitioner’s parents-in-law, went to Sofitel to check-in. They were accompanied by their grandchildren, Carlos, 5, and Mario, 3. As Mario was stepping into the pool near the lifeguard station, he slipped and hit his head, which caused bleeding. Carlos meanwhile mounted the kiddie pool slide and bumped his head. He sustained a contusion and likewise had bleeding. Petitioner sent a Letter to Sofitel’s manager, Bern Schneider, demanding compensation. Four months later, Carlos started having seizures that caused the petitioner to incur medical expenses. He filed a complaint for damages before the MTC. It dismissed the complaint for failing to prove that the injury was the proximate cause of his children’s admission to the hospital. The RTC affirmed the MTC. The CA also affirmed the RTC. The CA denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration hence the case at bar. Petitioner maintained that the slide within the pool’s premises made it an attractive nuisance, which should prompt Sofitel to place more safeguards. Petitioner demands liability citing the doctrines of attractive nuisance and res ipsa loquitur.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not Sofitel is liable.

 

HELD:

                Yes. In Hidalgo Enterprises Inc. v Balandan, the court made a clarification on the attractive nuisance doctrine’s application to the bodies of water, explaining that it is not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well as natural, in the absence of some unusual condition or artificial feature other than the mere water and its location. Here, the records show that there were two slides installed with slopes ending at the kiddie pool. Taking Hidalgo case 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. The respondent's failure to prevent the children from using the swimming pool was the proximate cause of the injuries they sustained. To reiterate, 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. Respondent's failure to install the needed safeguards constitutes negligence for which it should be held liable for damages.