KARLOS NOEL R. ALETA, PETITIONER, VS.

SOFITEL Meanwhile, Carlos mounted the kiddie pool slide and

PHILIPPINE PLAZA MANILA, RESPONDENT. thereafter bumped his head. He sustained a contusion, which
likewise caused his head to bleed.8
DECISION
To prevent the injuries' progression, Karlos and Dr. Marilyn
LEONEN, SAJ.: administered first aid treatment to the children. Carlos and Mario
were then brought to the hotel clinic where they were treated by
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving an injury by reason the hotel's physician.9
of quasidelict by presenting sufficient evidence in order to prove:
(1) fault or negligence on the defendant's part; (2) the On February 25, 2009, Karlos sent a Letter10 to Mr. Bernd
concomitant injury sustained by the complainant; and (3) the Schneider, Sofitel's Manager, demanding compensation for his
nexus showing the cause and effect of the fault or negligence children's injuries.11
and the resulting injury on the plaintiff's part.
On April 15, 2009, Sofitel, through its counsel, denied Karlos's
This Court resolves a Petition for Review1 assailing the Court request for compensation.12
of Appeals Decision2 and Resolution.3 The Court of Appeals
affirmed the findings of both the Metropolitan Trial Court and Four months later, in June 2009, Carlos started having
Regional Trial Court that Karlos Noel R. Aleta (Karlos) failed to seizures and was admitted at Medical City. He was subjected to
prove that the injuries sustained by his children were caused by laboratory diagnostics, MRI,13 and EEG,14 procedures which
Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila's (Sofitel) negligence. caused his father to incur expenses.15

On February 13, 2009,4 Attorney Bonifacio A. Alentajan (Atty. Aggrieved, Karlos filed a Complaint for Damages16 against
Bonifacio) and Doctor Marilyn C. Alentajan (Dr. Marilyn), Karlos's Sofitel before the Metropolitan Trial Court. He identified the
parentsin-law, went to Sofitel to check in Karlos's parents-in-law following observations:
were accompanied by his children namely, Carlos Marco Aleta
(Carlos) and Mario Montego Aleta (Mario), who were then five 5. The level of the steps in the kiddie pool, at the left of the
and three years old respectively.5 lifeguard station, is not visible. Hence, swimmers can easily miss
the steps and go off balance.
Later that day, Dr. Marilyn brought Carlos and Mario to the
hotel's kiddie pool. As Mario was stepping into the pool near the The edge of the kiddie pool is jagged that it can easily cut
lifeguard station, he suddenly slipped which resulted to his head soft tissues by mere contact. The notice, regarding the age limit
hitting the rugged edge of the pool.6 He sustained injuries which for those desiring to use the slide, is not visible as plants cover it.
caused his head to bleed.7
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 Karlos's motion for reconsideration26 was likewise denied by
impression that these are integral to the kiddie pool. the Regional Trial Court in its October 11, 2013 Order.27

6. The lifeguard on duty did not mind/nor prevent the many Undaunted, Karlos filed a Petition for Review28 before the
children going up the steps to go up the slide.17 Court of Appeals.

He maintained that the injuries sustained by his children were In its May 11, 2016 Decision,29 the Court of Appeals denied
the result of Sofitel's negligence and therefore prayed that it be the petition and affirmed the Regional Trial Court's decision. It
ordered to pay him the following: (1) ₱50,000.00 as actual ruled that Karlos failed to establish the connection between
damages; (2) ₱100,000.00 as moral damages; (3) ₱50,000.00 as Sofitel's alleged negligence and the injuries sustained by his
exemplary damages; and (4) ₱50,000.00 as attorney's fees.18 children.30

On August 26, 2009, Sofitel filed its Answer where it alleged On November 2, 2016, the Court of Appeals
the following affirmative allegations and defenses: (1) the denied31 Karlos's motion for reconsideration.32
complaint states no cause of action; (2) Karlos failed to identify
his right violated by Sofitel entitling him to damages; (3) Karlos Hence, Karlos filed a Petition for Review before this Court
has no cause of action against Sofitel; and (4) the incident was seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision and
an accident.19 Resolution.

After trial, the Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed Karlos's Petitioner cites Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code and
complaint on the ground that he was unable to substantiate his argues that respondent should be held liable for the injuries
allegations.20 It found that Karlos failed to prove that the injury sustained by his children.33 He maintains that the presence of a
sustained by his children was the proximate cause of his slide within the pool's premises made it an attractive nuisance,
children's admission at Medical City. In addition, it noted that which should have prompted respondent to place more
Karlos's children and parents-in-law were not on Sofitel's list of safeguards. He stresses that while warning signs were posted
checked-in guest on the day of the incident, and that they only regarding the use of the pool, the same were placed in an
checked-in on February 14, 2019. Hence, it ruled that the inconspicuous place which could not have ensured the safety of
children were not authorized to use the hotel's facilities on its guests.34
February 13, 2019.21
He likewise insists that there were no lifeguards present at
Karlos moved for reconsideration22 but the Metropolitan Trial the time of the incident. Moreover, assuming that there were,
Court denied it on August 1, 2011.23 they were negligent in the performance of their duties.35

On appeal,24 the Regional Trial Court affirmed in toto the In addition, petitioner contends that the doctrine of res ipsa
Metropolitan Trial Court's decision.25 loquitur should apply since, based on Dr. Marilyn's observations,
the edges of the stones by the pool are jagged and, thus, court."43 Hence, it is not this Court's function to review the
dangerous to children.36 factual findings and reevaluate the pieces of evidence presented
by the parties, especially when the conclusion of both the trial
Petitioner likewise questions the competency of the doctor and appellate courts with regard to respondent's negligence are
who attended to his children, alleging that she had no training in the same.44
occupational safety and health—in violation of Article 160 of the
Labor Code.37 However, jurisprudence have recognized several exceptions
to this rule. In Medina v. Asistio, Jr.45:
Finally, petitioner insists that the exact date of the incident is
immaterial considering that respondent admitted its (1) When the conclusion is a finding
occurrence.38 He claims that assuming his children were not part grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
of the checked-in guests on the day of the incident, hotel conjectures; (2) When the inference made is
management should have required them to register before using manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3)
the pool, which is therefore respondent's responsibility.39 Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4)
When the judgment is based on a
For its part, respondent argues that petitioner failed to prove misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings
the causal connection between his children's injuries and its of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of
supposed negligence. It likewise claims that there were lifeguards Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the
on duty at the time of the incident.40 In addition, respondent issues of the case and the same is contrary to the
contends that the medical training received by the doctors at its admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7)
clinic is more than sufficient considering that the hotel is not a The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary
hazardous establishment.41 to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings
of fact are conclusions without citation of specific
For this Court's resolution is the issue whether or not evidence on which they are based; (9) When the
respondent Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila should be held liable for facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
the injuries sustained by petitioner Karlos Noel R. Aleta's children. petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed
by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact
The Petition is impressed with merit. of the Court of Appeals is premised on the
supposed absence of evidence and is
I contradicted by the evidence on
record.46 (Citations omitted)
The determination of whether a person is negligent is a
question of fact, which is beyond this Court's power of review Here, petitioner invokes the third exception, in that the Court
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.42 In a Petition for Review of Appeals allegedly committed grave abuse of discretion in
on Certiorari, this Court's jurisdiction "is limited to reviewing issuing the assailed decision.
errors of law that may have been committed by the lower
 Grave abuse of discretion, as an exception to the general Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that "[w]hoever by act
rule, was discussed in Pascual v. Burgos47 in this wise: or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
The Court of Appeals must have gravely abused its discretion negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation between
in its appreciation of the evidence presented by the parties and in the parties, is called a quasi-delict[.]" It governs instances of
its factual findings to warrant a review of factual issues by this "wrongful or negligent act or omission which creates a vinculum
court. Grave abuse of discretion is defined, thus: juris and gives rise to an obligation between two persons not
formally bound by any other obligation[.]"49
By grave abuse of discretion is meant such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as To sustain a case for quasi-delict, petitioner must establish
is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of the following requisites: "(a) damage suffered by the plaintiff; (b)
discretion must be grave as where the power is fault or negligence of the defendant; and, (c) connection of cause
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and
reason of passion or personal hostility and must the damage incurred by the plaintiff."50
be so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to In Mendoza v. Spouses Gomez,51 this Court defined
perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in "negligence" as "the failure to observe for the protection of the
contemplation of law. interests of another person, that degree of care, precaution and
vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such
Grave abuse of discretion refers not merely other person suffers injury."52 In determining the existence of
to palpable errors of jurisdiction; or to violations negligence, Picart v. Smith53 is instructive:
of the Constitution, the law and jurisprudence. It
refers also to cases in which, for various reasons, The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in
there has been a gross misapprehension of facts. a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in
doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and
.... caution which an ordinarily prudent person would have used in
the same situation? If not, then he is guilty of negligence. The
Grave abuse of discretion, to be an exception to the rule, law here in effect adopts the standard supposed to be supplied
must have attended the evaluation of the facts and evidence by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the
presented by the parties.48 (Citations omitted) Roman law. The existence of negligence in a given case is not
determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in
Here, a review of the records reveals that there has been a the situation before him. The law considers what would be
gross misapprehension of facts, which permits this Court to reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary
resolve the factual controversies involved. intelligence and prudence and determines liability by that.

II
 The question as to what would constitute the conduct of a having a close causal connection with its
prudent man in a given situation must of course be always immediate predecessor, the final event in the
determined in the light of human experience and in view of the chain immediately effecting the injury as natural
facts involved in the particular case. Abstract speculation cannot and probable result of the cause which first
here be of much value but his much can be profitably said: acted, under such circumstances that the person
Reasonable men govern their conduct by the circumstances responsible for the first event should, as an
which are before them or known to them. They are not, and are ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have
not supposed to be, omniscient of the future. Hence they can be reasonable ground to expect at the moment of
expected to take care only when there is something before them his act or default that an injury to some person
to suggest or warn of danger. Could a prudent man, in the case might probably result therefrom.
under consideration, foresee harm as a result of the course
actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of the actor to take There is no exact mathematical formula to
precautions to guard against that harm. Reasonable foresight of determine proximate cause. It is based upon
harm, followed by the ignoring of the suggestion born of this mixed considerations of logic, common sense,
prevision, is always necessary before negligence can be held to policy and precedent. Plaintiff must, however,
exist. Stated in these terms, the proper criterion for determining establish a sufficient link between the act or
the existence of negligence in a given case is this: Conduct is said omission and the damage or injury. That link
to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the must not be remote or far-fetched; otherwise, no
tortfeasor would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another liability will attach. The damage or injury must be
was sufficiently probable to warrant his foregoing the conduct or a natural and probable result of the act or
guarding against its consequences.54 omission.56 (Citations omitted)

On the other hand, in Dy Teban Trading, Inc. v. Ching55 the Here, there is no dispute on the existence of the first
connection of cause and effect between the injury and the requisite. The trial courts and the Court of Appeals are all in
purported negligence, otherwise known as the proximate cause, agreement that petitioner's children sustained injuries while they
has been explained as follows: were at respondent's premises. However, they dismissed
petitioner's plea for damages on the ground that he allegedly
Proximate cause is defined as that cause, failed to prove respondent's negligence and the proximate cause
which, in natural and continuous sequence, between the injuries his children sustained and the alleged
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, negligence that respondent committed.
produces the injury, and without which the result
would not have occurred. More comprehensively, To reiterate, the Metropolitan Trial Court found in its decision
proximate cause is that cause acting first and that petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to establish
producing the injury, either immediately or by respondent's liability for his children's injuries. It noted that
setting other events in motion, all constituting a petitioner did not submit any medical finding showing that the
natural and continuous chain of events, each
injury sustained was the proximate cause of the children's children of the plaintiff was [sic] injured and
admission at the hospital, thus: treated at the hotel clinic, however, failed to
prove that the said injuries were due to the
In the case under consideration, plaintiffs' allegedly hazardous facilities of the hotel.57
allegation that the defendant's facilities are
hazardous to the children and that the defendant In affirming this, the Court of Appeals held that:
is negligent in attending to needs of its guests
and clients, however no pieces of evidence were In the case under consideration, petitioner
presented to sufficiently establish the same. failed to clearly show that as a result of the fault
Plaintiff failed to establish its cause of action by or negligence of Sofitel, Mario and Carlos
the degree of evidence required by the Rules. sustained the injuries at Sofitel's swimming pool.
They failed to prove that the defendant is liable It should be pointed out that Mario and Carlos
to the injuries sustained by the children. sustained contusions and concussions as a result
of having slipped in the swimming pool and
It is worthy to note that there has been no hitting their heads. We thus cannot see the
iota of evidence introduced by the plaintiff to connection between the purportedly negligent
show that the injuries sustained by the two acts of Sofitel and the injuries sustained by Mario
children are the proximate cause of the latter's and Carlo. The fact that there was no lifeguard or
admission to Medical City. There is no showing of if there were any but were merely not doing their
any medical findings that the children were functions, could not have prevented the incident
admitted in the hospital because of the injuries from happening. Further, the fact that the stones
obtained during the alleged incident, considering used for the pool are jagged could not have
the length of period before the children were likewise contributed to the slip since it was not
admitted in the said hospital. What the record alleged that the pool surface was slippery. True,
indicates is that the alleged incident happened on Mario sustained laceration but this was not
February 13, 2009, whereas the children were proven to have been caused by the jagged
admitted in Medical City on June 10, 2009 and stones on the pool's floor. While it could have
were discharged on June 11, 2009, as shown in boosted Sofitel's capability as a "world class hotel
the Statement of Accounts marked as Exhibit "I", with the best amenities" that its resident doctor
"I-1" to "I-5". has government training accreditation in
occupational health and safety, the lack of such
From the evidence presented by the plaintiff, accreditation was also not contributory to the fall
his money claim was not validly and sufficiently suffered by both Mario and Carlos. Moreover, the
established thus failed to give the legal basis to signs purportedly merely stated the appropriate
grant the relief prayed for in the complaint. What age of pool guests. Hence, these could not have
they merely established was the fact that the two helped in averting the incident.58
 Despite the lower courts' findings, petitioner demands liability equivalent to an implied license to enter, and
on respondent's part, citing as his basis the doctrines of attractive where the child does not enter under such
nuisance and res ipsa loquitur. conditions the owners failure to make reasonable
precaution to guard the child against the injury
II (A) from unknown or unseen dangers, placed upon
such premises by the owner, is clearly a breach
First discussed in Taylor v. Manila Electric Railroad and Light of duty, a negligent omission, for which he may
Co.,59 the doctrine of attractive nuisance, which is of American and should be held responsible, if the child is
origin, states: actually injured, without other fault on its part
than that it had entered on the premises of a
Drawn by curiosity and impelled by the restless stranger without his express invitation or
spirit of youth, boys here as well as there will permission. To hold otherwise would be expose
usually be found wherever the public permitted to all the children in the community to unknown
to congregate. The movement of machinery, and perils and unnecessary danger at the whim of the
indeed anything which arouses the attention of owners or occupants of land upon which they
the young and inquiring mind, will draw them to might naturally and reasonably be expected to
the neighborhood as inevitably as does the enter.60 (Emphasis supplied)
magnet draw the iron which comes within the
range of its magnetic influence. The owners of Simply stated, the doctrine provides that:
premises, therefore, whereon things attractive to
children are exposed, or upon which the public One who maintains on his premises dangerous
are expressively or impliedly permitted to enter instrumentalities or appliances of a character
to or upon which the owner knows or ought to likely to attract children in play, and who fails to
know children are likely to roam about for exercise ordinary care to prevent children from
pastime and in play, "must calculate upon this, playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to
and take precautions accordingly." In such cases a child of tender years who is injured thereby,
the owner of the premises can not be heard to even if the child is technically a trespasser in the
say that because the child has entered upon his premises.61 (Citation omitted)
premises without his express permission he is a
trespasser to whom the owner owes no duty or Later, in Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. v. Balandan, 62 this Court
obligation whatever. The owner's failure to take made a clarification on the doctrine's application to bodies of
reasonable precautions to prevent the child form water, explaining:
entering premises at a place where he knows or
ought to know that children are accustomed to Now, is a swimming pool or water tank an instrumentality or
roam about or to which their childish instincts appliance likely to attract little children in play? In other words is
and impulses are likely to attract them is at least
the body of water an attractive nuisance? The great majority of consideration, although the swimming pool alone may not be
American decisions say no. considered as an attractive nuisance, the kiddie pool's close
proximity to the slides formed an unusual condition or artificial
"The attractive nuisance doctrine generally is feature intended to attract children. In other words, the
not applicable to bodies of water, artificial as well installation of the slides with slopes ending over the swimming
as natural, in the absence of some unusual pool's waters makes it an attractive nuisance.
condition or artificial feature other than the mere
water and its location." By this reason, respondent was duty bound to undertake
protective measures to ensure the children's safety. It was
"There are numerous cases in which the respondent's responsibility to guarantee that appropriate
attractive nuisance doctrine has been held not to safeguards were in place within the attractive nuisance in order
be applicable to ponds or reservoirs, pools of to protect children against the injury from unknown or unseen
water, streams, canals, dams, ditches, culverts, dangers.
drains, cesspools or sewer pools,...."
On the other hand, res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase which
.... translates to "the thing or the transaction speaks for itself."64 It
is a rule of evidence which recognizes that while negligence is not
The reason why a swimming pool or pond or reservoir of generally presumed and should be proved by direct evidence, the
water is not considered an attractive nuisance was lucidly mere occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding
explained by the Indiana Appellate Court as follows: circumstances, warrants an inference that the injury was caused
by, in this case, respondent's want of care.65 As explained
"Nature has created streams, lakes and pools in D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Court of Appeals:66
which attract children. Lurking in their waters is
always the danger of drowning. Against this As a rule of evidence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is peculiar
danger children are early instructed so that they to the law of negligence which recognizes that prima
are sufficiently presumed to know the danger; facie negligence may be established without direct proof and
and if the owner of private property creates an furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence.
artificial pool on his own property, merely
duplicating the work of nature without adding The concept of res ipsa loquitur has been explained in this
any new danger,... (he) is not liable because of wise:
having created an 'attractive
nuisance.'63 (Emphasis supplied; citations While negligence is not ordinarily inferred or
omitted) presumed, and while the mere happening of an
accident or injury will not generally give rise to
Here, the records show that there were two slides installed an inference or presumption that it was due to
with slopes ending at the kiddie pool. Taking Hidalgo into negligence on defendant's part, under the
 doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which means, upon the fact that the chief evidence of the true
literally, the thing or transaction speaks for itself, cause, whether culpable or innocent, is practically
or in one jurisdiction, that the thing or accessible to the defendant but inaccessible to
instrumentality speaks for itself, the facts or the injured person.
circumstances accompanying an injury may be
such as to raise a presumption, or at least permit It has been said that the doctrine of res ipsa
an inference of negligence on the part of the loquitur furnishes a bridge by which a plaintiff,
defendant, or some other person who is charged without knowledge of the cause, reaches over to
with negligence. defendant who knows or should know the cause,
for any explanation of care exercised by the
... where it is shown that the thing or defendant in respect of the matter of which the
instrumentality which caused the injury plaintiff complains. The res ipsa loquitur doctrine,
complained of was under the control or another court has said, is a rule of necessity, in
management of the defendant, and that the that it proceeds on the theory that under the
occurrence resulting in the injury was such as in peculiar circumstances in which the doctrine is
the ordinary course of things would not happen if applicable, it is within the power of the defendant
those who had its control or management used to show that there was no negligence on his part,
proper care, there is sufficient evidence, or, as and direct proof of defendant's negligence is
sometimes stated, reasonable evidence, in the beyond plaintiff's power. Accordingly, some
absence of explanation by the defendant, that courts add to the three prerequisites for the
the injury arose from or was caused by the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine the
defendant's want of care. further requirement that for the res ipsa loquitur
doctrine to apply, it must appear that the injured
One of the theoretical bases for the doctrine is its party had no knowledge or means of knowledge
necessity, i.e., that necessary evidence is absent or not available. as to the cause of the accident, or that the party
to be charged with negligence has superior
The res ipsa loquitur doctrine is based in part knowledge or opportunity for explanation of the
upon the theory that the defendant in charge of accident.67 (Emphasis in the original; citations
the instrumentality which causes the injury either omitted)
knows the cause of the accident or has the best
opportunity of ascertaining it and that the The doctrine is applied in conformity with ordinary human
plaintiff has no such knowledge, and therefore is experience or common knowledge, in that:
compelled to allege negligence in general terms
and to rely upon the proof of the happening of The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is simply a
the accident in order to establish negligence. The recognition of the postulate that, as a matter of
inference which the doctrine permits is grounded common knowledge and experience, the very
 nature of certain types of occurrences may justify the doctrine, creating an inference or
an inference of negligence on the part of the presumption of negligence, and to thereby place
person who controls the instrumentality causing on the defendant the burden of going forward
the injury in the absence of some explanation by with the proof.71 (Emphasis supplied)
the defendant who is charged with negligence. It
is grounded in the superior logic of ordinary For the doctrine to apply, the following requisites must be
human experience and on the basis of such established:
experience or common knowledge, negligence
may be deduced from the mere occurrence of the (1) the accident is of such character as to
accident itself. Hence, res ipsa loquitur is applied warrant an inference that it would not have
in conjunction with the doctrine of common happened except for the defendant's negligence;
knowledge.68 (Emphasis in original; citations
omitted) (2) the accident must have been caused by an
agency or instrumentality within the exclusive
In any case, it must be emphasized that the doctrine is not a management or control of the person charged
rule of substantive law and is not a separate basis for liability. It with the negligence complained of; and
is regarded as a mere procedural convenience, relieving the
plaintiff of the burden of producing a specific proof of (3) the accident must not have been due to any
negligence.69 It "rests on inference and not on presumption"70: voluntary action or contribution on the part of the
person injured.72
However, much has been said the res ipsa
loquitur is not a rule of substantive law and, as This Court finds that all requisites are present in this case.
such, does not create or constitute an
independent or separate ground of liability. To begin with, it is undisputed that petitioner's children
Instead, it is considered as merely evidentiary or sustained their injuries while playing within the pool's premises—
in the nature of a procedural rule. It is regarded an instrumentality within respondent's exclusive management and
as a mode of proof, of a mere procedural control.
convenience since it furnishes a substitute for,
and relieves a plaintiff of, the burden of
Further, by reason of the swimming pool's nature as an
producing specific proof of negligence. In other
attractive nuisance, respondent is duty bound to guarantee that it
words, mere invocation and application of the
had installed sufficient precautionary measures to ensure the
doctrine does not dispense with the requirement
safety of its guests, particularly the children. The establishment
of proof of negligence. It is simply a step in the
of these safeguards should have prevented the incident.
process of such proof permitting the plaintiff to
Accordingly, it could be inferred that petitioner's children would
present along with the proof of the accident,
not have sustained their injuries were it not for respondent's
enough of the attending circumstances to invoke
negligence.
 No contributory negligence can likewise be imputed against "Q: Before they got injured?
the children. Children, by nature, are enthusiastically inquisitive
towards different places and objects, such as pools with slides. By "A: Yes, sir.
reason of their "childish instincts and impulses" it is expected that
they will be drawn to such places to play, unaware of the dangers "Q: Did you stop them?
present within their immediate vicinity.
"A: He did not stop because they are... (interrupted)
Having established the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur, there exists a presumption that respondent acted "Q: Did you stop them?
negligently. Hence, the burden is shifted to respondent to prove
that it had taken sufficient precautionary measures. The "A: No, sir.
presumption may be rebutted upon proof that it exercised due
care and prudence.73
"Q: Children below 12 years old you said in your Affidavit are not
allowed to use the pool?
Respondent refutes their liability by insisting that it posted
safety rules in conspicuous places around and within the pool
"A: Yes, sir!
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 "Q: and you saw these two (2) boys there who are below 12 years
incident.74 old, did you stop them from using the pool?

Likewise, the presence of lifeguards during the incident "A: No, sir!"75
cannot relieve respondent from its liability. While it was
established that there were lifeguards at the time of the incident, Based on the foregoing, respondent's failure to prevent the
the lifeguards admitted that they failed to stop the children from children from using the swimming pool was the proximate cause
using the pool: of the injuries they sustained. To reiterate, by maintaining an
attractive nuisance in its premises, it is respondent's responsibility
"Q: You did not see the child or these two (2) boys used the pool to ensure that necessary precautions are in place to prevent
before that? children from being harmed. Respondent's failure to install the
needed safeguards constitutes negligence for which it should be
held liable for damages.
"A: As I recall, sir, I saw that one, the two (2) boys.
III
"Q: Swimming there?
We now determine the amount of damages for which
"A: Yes, sir!
petitioner is entitled.
 Article 2199 of the Civil Code states that "[e]xcept as Spouses Hernandez v. Spouses Dolor79 discussed the nature
provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate of temperate damages:
compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he
has duly proved. Such compensation is referred to as actual or Temperate or moderate damages are
compensatory damages." Actual damages refer to the damages which are more than nominal but less
compensation given to an injured person as an indemnification than compensatory which may be recovered
for the pecuniary loss they suffered. Its purpose is to "put the when the court finds that some pecuniary loss
injured party in the position in which he had been before he was has been suffered but its amount cannot, from
injured."76 To justify its award, it is necessary that the loss the nature of the case, be proved with certainty.
sustained are supported by competent proof, such as receipts Temperate damages are awarded for those cases
and invoices.77 where, from the nature of the case, definite proof
of pecuniary loss cannot be offered, although the
Here, petitioner asks this Court that he be awarded actual court is convinced that there has been such loss.
damages in the amount of ₱50,000.00 for the alleged expenses A judge should be empowered to calculate
he incurred. As proof, he submitted a Statement of Account and a moderate damages in such cases, rather than the
receipt78 from Medical City which, however, only proves that plaintiff should suffer, without redress, from the
Carlos was subjected to certain medical procedures. The defendant's wrongful act. The assessment of
Statement of Account and receipt are insufficient to prove that temperate damages is left to the sound discretion
the procedures were done by reason of the injuries Carlos of the court provided that such an award is
sustained as a result of Sofitel's negligence.
1âшphi1 reasonable under the circumstances.80 (Citations
omitted)
In the absence of competent proof, this Court denies
petitioner's claim of actual damages. Here, a perusal of the records reveals that petitioner and his
children suffered some pecuniary loss by reason of the incident.
However, temperate damages may be awarded even in the As alleged in the pleadings, the injuries that petitioner's children
absence of proof of actual damages, provided that it has been sustained took two weeks to physically heal. As compensation for
proven that the injured party suffered some pecuniary loss. the pecuniary loss which petitioner and his children suffered, this
Article 2224 of the Civil Code provides: Court awards temperate damages in the amount of ₱50,000.00.

Article 2224. Temperate or moderate damages, III (A)

which are more than nominal but less than
compensatory damages, may be recovered when Petitioner's prayer for moral damages is granted.
the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been
suffered but its amount can not, from the nature Moral damages refer to the compensation awarded to an
of the case, be provided with certainty. injured party, not for the purpose of penalizing the wrong doer,
but as a means to "alleviate in some way the physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, ....
wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury unjustly caused a person."81 Unlike actual and temperate damages, moral damages may
be awarded even if the injured party failed to prove that he has
The characteristics and purpose of moral damages were suffered pecuniary loss. As long as it was established that
discussed in Guy v. Tulfo82: complainant's injury was the result of the offending party's
action, the complainant may recover moral
Moral damages are "compensatory damages awarded for damages.83 (Emphasis in the original; citations omitted)
mental pain and suffering or mental anguish resulting from a
wrong." They are awarded to the injured party to enable him to Article 2219 of the Civil Code categorically states that moral
obtain means that will ease the suffering he sustained from damages may be awarded in cases involving "[q]uasi-delicts
respondent's reprehensible act. causing physical injuries[.]" In awarding moral damages, courts
are given the discretion to determine the amount to be granted,
"Moral damages are not punitive in nature," but are instead a taking into consideration the circumstances of a particular case.
type of "award designed to compensate the claimant for actual While there is no fixed standard, "the amount should not be
injury suffered[.]"As explained in Mangaliag v. Catubig-Pastoral: palpably and scandalously excessive."84 Further, in fixing the
amount, regard must be made to the injury suffered and the
It must be remembered that moral damages, wrong committed.85
though incapable of pecuniary estimation, are
designed to compensate and alleviate in some Taking into account the injuries sustained by petitioner's
way the physical suffering, mental anguish, children and respondent's concomitant failure to place sufficient
fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, safeguards to ensure the children's safety, this Court finds the
wounded feelings, moral shock, social award of moral damages in the amount of ₱100,000.00 adequate
humiliation, and similar injury unjustly caused a to recompense for the physical suffering and similar injuries
person. Moral damages are awarded to enable sustained by petitioner and his children.
the injured party to obtain means, diversions or
amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral III (B)
suffering he/she has undergone, by reason of the
defendant's culpable action. Its award is aimed at In cases involving quasi-delicts, "exemplary damages may be
restoration, as much as possible, of the spiritual granted if the defendant acted with gross
status quo ante; thus, it must be proportionate to negligence."86 Recovery of exemplary damages is not a matter of
the suffering inflicted. Since each case must be right and is subject to the court's discretion.87
governed by its own peculiar circumstances,
there is no hard and fast rule in determining the The prerequisites for the award of exemplary damages was
proper amount. discussed in Kierulf v. Court of Appeals88:
Exemplary damages are designed to permit the courts to mould Finally, on account of this dispute's protracted litigation,
behavior that has socially deleterious consequences, and its P50,000.00 as attorney's fees is awarded.
imposition is required by public policy to suppress the wanton
acts of an offender. However, it cannot be recovered as a matter ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is GRANTED. The May 11,
of right. It is based entirely on the discretion of the court. 2016 Decision and November 2, 2016 Resolution of the Court of
Jurisprudence sets certain requirements before exemplary Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 132851 are REVERSED. Respondent
damages may be awarded, to wit: Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila is ORDERED to pay petitioner
Karlos Noel R. Aleta: (1) ₱50,000.00 as temperate damages; (2)
"(1) (T)hey may be imposed by way of example ₱100,000.00 as moral damages; (3) P50,000.00 as exemplary
or correction only in addition, among others, to damages; and (4) ₱50,000.00 as attorney's fees.
compensatory damages, and cannot be
recovered as a matter of right, their All damages awarded shall be subject to interest at the rate
determination depending upon the amount of of six percent (6%) per annum90 from the finality of this Decision
compensatory damages that may be awarded to until its full satisfaction.
the claimant;
SO ORDERED.
(2) the claimant must first establish his right to
moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory
damages; and

(3) the wrongful act must be accompanied by

bad faith, and the award would be allowed only if
the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive or malevolent
manner"89 (Citations omitted)

Here, the circumstances surrounding the case warrant the

imposition of exemplary damages.

As a luxury hotel which caters to an extensive range of

clientele, respondent ought to ensure that adequate measures
are in place to guarantee the safety of its guests. By reason of
the insufficiency of the safety rules posted and the lifeguards'
failure to avert the injuries sustained by petitioner's children, this
Court awards petitioner ₱50,000.00 as exemplary damages.