Aleta v. Sofitel

 

Aleta v. Sofitel

G.R. No. 228159

January 11, 2023

 

FACTS:

Atty. Bonifacio Alentajan and Dr. Marilyn Alentajan checked in at Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila with their grandchildren, Carlos Aleta and Mario Aleta, who were then five and three years old, respectively. Dr. Marilyn brought Carlos and Mario to the hotel's kiddie pool. As Mario was stepping into the pool near the lifeguard station, he suddenly slipped which resulted in his head hitting the rugged edge of the pool. Meanwhile, Carlos mounted the kiddie pool slide and thereafter bumped his head. Both of them sustained injuries, causing their head to bleed. Aggrieved, Karlos Aleta, the father of Carlos and Mario, filed a complaint for damages against Sofitel before the MTC. He maintained that the injuries sustained by his children were the result of Sofitel's negligence and therefore prayed that it be ordered to pay him damages. After trial, the MTC dismissed Karlos's complaint finding that Karlos failed to prove that the injury sustained by his children was the proximate cause of his children's admission at Medical City. Upon appeal, both the RTC and CA upheld the ruling of the MTC. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Sofitel's failure to prevent the children from using the swimming pool was the proximate cause of the injuries sustained by the children.

HELD:

Yes. Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. There is no exact mathematical formula to determine proximate cause. Plaintiff must, however, establish a sufficient link between the act or omission and the damage or injury. That link must not be remote or farfetched; otherwise, no liability will attach. The damage or injury must be a natural and probable result of the act or omission. In this case, Sofitel refuted its liability by insisting that it posted safety rules in conspicuous places around and within the pool area. Pursuant to the affidavit of the lifeguard present during the incident, children below 12 years old are prohibited from using the pool. Accordingly, the presence of lifeguards during the incident cannot relieve Sofitel 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 notwithstanding the fact that the children were below the appropriate age for pool guests. Therefore, respondent's failure to prevent the children from using the swimming pool was the proximate cause of the injuries they sustained. 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.