Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 74 views

    Atienza - Aleta vs. Sofitel

    Uploaded by

    vhee
    The Supreme Court ruled that Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila should be held liable for injuries sustained by Karlos Noel R. Aleta's children at the hotel's kiddie pool. While at the pool, one child slipped and hit his head on the jagged edge of the pool and the other bumped his head on the kiddie pool slide. The Court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which allows an inference of negligence when the occurrence suggests negligence as a cause, and placed the burden on Sofitel to prove it exercised due care. However, Sofitel failed to do so and merely insisted safety signs were posted without addressing how the incident could have been prevented. The Court thus reversed the lower court

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Atienza - Aleta vs. Sofitel

    Uploaded by

    vhee
    74 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila should be held liable for injuries sustained by Karlos Noel R. Aleta's children at the hotel's kiddie pool. While at the pool, one child slipped and hit his head on the jagged edge of the pool and the other bumped his head on the kiddie pool slide. The Court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which allows an inference of negligence when the occurrence suggests negligence as a cause, and placed the burden on Sofitel to prove it exercised due care. However, Sofitel failed to do so and merely insisted safety signs were posted without addressing how the incident could have been prevented. The Court thus reversed the lower court

    Original Title

    Atienza_Aleta vs. Sofitel (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila should be held liable for injuries sustained by Karlos Noel R. Aleta's children at the hotel's kiddie pool. While at the pool, one child slipped and hit his head on the jagged edge of the pool and the other bumped his head on the kiddie pool slide. The Court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which allows an inference of negligence when the occurrence suggests negligence as a cause, and placed the burden on Sofitel to prove it exercised due care. However, Sofitel failed to do so and merely insisted safety signs were posted without addressing how the incident could have been prevented. The Court thus reversed the lower court

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    74 views3 pages

    Atienza - Aleta vs. Sofitel

    Uploaded by

    vhee
    The Supreme Court ruled that Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila should be held liable for injuries sustained by Karlos Noel R. Aleta's children at the hotel's kiddie pool. While at the pool, one child slipped and hit his head on the jagged edge of the pool and the other bumped his head on the kiddie pool slide. The Court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which allows an inference of negligence when the occurrence suggests negligence as a cause, and placed the burden on Sofitel to prove it exercised due care. However, Sofitel failed to do so and merely insisted safety signs were posted without addressing how the incident could have been prevented. The Court thus reversed the lower court

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    STATUTORY

    CONSTRUCTION

    1. KARLOS NOEL R. ALETA, PETITIONER, VS. SOFITEL PHILIPPINE PLAZA


    MANILA, RESPONDENT.

    TITLE Aleta vs. Sofitel


    GR NUMBER G.R. No. 228150
    DATE January 11, 2023
    PONENTE LEONEN, SAJ
    NATURE/KEYWORDS Res ipsa loquitur

    FACTS On February 13, 2009,4 Attorney Bonifacio A. Alentajan


    (Atty. Bonifacio) and Doctor Marilyn C. Alentajan (Dr.
    Marilyn), Karlos's parentsin-law, went to Sofitel to check in
    Karlos's parents-in-law were accompanied by his children
    namely, Carlos Marco Aleta (Carlos) and Mario Montego
    Aleta (Mario), who were then five and three years old
    respectively.

    Later that day, 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 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.

    Aggrieved, Karlos filed a Complaint for Damages against


    Sofitel before the Metropolitan Trial Court. He identified the
    following observations:

    5. The level of the steps in the kiddie pool, at the left of the
    lifeguard station, is not visible. Hence, swimmers can easily
    miss the steps and go off balance.

    The edge of the kiddie pool is jagged that it can easily cut soft
    tissues by mere contact. The notice, regarding the age limit for
    those desiring to use the slide, is not visible as plants cover it.

    STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - CASE DIGEST ATIENZA, V.


    TITLE Aleta vs. Sofitel
    GR NUMBER G.R. No. 228150
    DATE January 11, 2023
    PONENTE LEONEN, SAJ

    The steps leading to the 2 slides are easily accessible for


    children swimming at the kiddie pool, without physical barrier.
    Both slides slope down and end at the kiddie pool thus giving
    the impression that these are integral to the kiddie pool.

    The lifeguard on duty did not mind/nor prevent the many


    children going up the steps to go up the slide.

    ISSUE(S) Whether or not respondent Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila


    should be held liable for the injuries sustained by petitioner
    Karlos Noel R. Aleta's children.
    RULING(S) Yes,

    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.

    ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is GRANTED. The May 11, 2016


    Decision and November 2, 2016 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
    CA G.R. SP No. 132851 are REVERSED. Respondent Sofitel
    Philippine Plaza Manila is ORDERED to pay petitioner Karlos Noel R.
    Aleta: (1) ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages;
    DOCTRINE/ The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is simply a recognition of the
    PRINCIPLES postulate that, as a matter of common knowledge and experience, the
    very nature of certain types of occurrences may justify an inference
    of negligence on the part of the person who controls the
    instrumentality causing the injury in the absence of some explanation

    STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - CASE DIGEST ATIENZA, V.


    TITLE Aleta vs. Sofitel
    GR NUMBER G.R. No. 228150
    DATE January 11, 2023
    PONENTE LEONEN, SAJ

    by the defendant who is charged with negligence. It is grounded in


    the superior logic of ordinary human experience and on the basis of
    such experience or common knowledge, negligence may be deduced
    from the mere occurrence of the accident itself. Hence, res ipsa
    loquitur is applied in conjunction with the doctrine of common
    knowledge.68 (Emphasis in original; citations omitted)

    STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION - CASE DIGEST ATIENZA, V.

    You might also like