Republic of the Philippines

CAVITE STATE UNIVERSITY

Bacoor City Campus
SHIV, Molino VI, City of Bacoor
🗌 (046) 8620-290
cvsubacoor@cvsu.edu.ph

An Output Presented to the Faculty of Cavite State University – Bacoor City Campus

CASE STUDY: Aleta vs. Sofitel Philippine Plaza

Manila

In Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements in:

Legal Aspects in Tourism and Hospitality (BSHM 80) Subject

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT 3-9

SUBMITTED BY:

2021-11176 Cielo, Jodelyn Mae C.

2021-11956 Dumaing, Marc Gabriel V.

2021-11874 Ignacio, John Lester B.

2021-11302 Iguet, Noshka Diane C.

2021-11399 Rafael, Michael John A.

SUBMITTED TO:
Ms. Mc Rina Apoderado
BSHM 80 Professor

June 28, 2024

 Introduction

Background

On February 13, 2009, a distressing incident occurred at the Sofitel Philippine

Plaza Manila, a renowned five-star hotel located in Pasay City, Philippines. Two young

children, aged 5 and 3 at the time, were involved in a harrowing accident while

swimming in the hotel's pool.

According to the details, one of the children tragically hit his head on the edge of

the pool, causing significant bleeding. The other child also suffered a contusion as a

result of the incident. Immediately after the accident, the hotel's medical staff attended to

the injured children, providing them with the necessary medical attention.

However, the ordeal did not end there. Four months after the initial incident, one

of the children experienced seizures, a concerning development that further exacerbated

the family's distress. Understandably, the family of the children decided to take legal

action against the hotel, filing a lawsuit for negligence.

The case made its way through the legal system, with the lower courts initially

dismissing the complaint due to a lack of substantiation. Undeterred, the family appealed

the decision, first to the Court of Appeals (CA) and then to the Supreme Court (SC) of

the Philippines.

In a landmark 21-page decision, the Supreme Court reversed the previous rulings,

finding Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila responsible for the children's injuries. The court

emphasized that the hotel was "duty bound to undertake protective measures to ensure the

children's safety" and had an obligation to "guarantee that appropriate safeguards were in

place to protect children against the injury from unknown or unseen dangers."

Ultimately, the Supreme Court directed the hotel to pay a substantial sum of PHP

250,000 in damages to the families of the injured children, underscoring the gravity of the

hotel's failure to provide a safe environment for its young guests.

This tragic incident serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of premises

2
liability and the responsibility that hotels and other establishments have in ensuring the

well-being and safety of all individuals, especially vulnerable groups like children, who

entrust their care to these institutions.

Case Description

Business Involved

Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila is a 5-star hotel at Roxas Blvd, Pasay, Metro

Manila.

Plaintiffs

Karlos Noel R. Aleta, a hotel guest, his family, and his parents-in-law.

Incident Details

Event/Incident

○ The incident occurred on February 13, 2009, at the Sofitel Philippine

Plaza Manila, a five-star hotel in Pasay City, Philippines. Two children,

aged 5 and 3 at the time, were injured in the hotel's swimming pool. One

of the children hit his head on the edge of the pool, causing bleeding. The

other child suffered a contusion. The children were immediately attended

to by the hotel physician after the incident. Four months later, one of the

children experienced seizures.

Date:

○ Incident date: February 13, 2009

○ Decision Date : Jan 11, 2023

○ Location: Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila, Pasay City, Philippines-

○ Victims: Two children, aged 5 and 3- Injuries: One child hit his head on

the pool edge, causing bleeding, and the other child suffered a contusion.

3
 ○ Medical attention: The children were attended to by the hotel physician

immediately after the incident.

○ Subsequent issue: One of the children experienced seizures four months

later.

Legal Framework

Relevant Laws and Regulations

Tourism Act of 2009 (RA 9593):

The Tourism Act of 2009 promotes the development of the tourism

industry in the Philippines and sets standards for tourism facilities and

services to ensure the safety and satisfaction of tourists.

Health and Sanitation Regulations:

Regulations related to health and sanitation are crucial in the hospitality

industry, particularly in facilities like swimming pools, to maintain

cleanliness and prevent accidents or health risks.

Occupational Safety and Health Standards (OSHS):

The OSHS also applies to the hospitality industry, ensuring that employees

and guests are provided with a safe environment, including facilities like

pools.

Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides that "[w]however by act or omission

causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the

damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre existing contractual relation

between the parties, is called a quasi-delict[.]" It governs instances of "wrongful or

negligent act or omission which creates a vinculum Juris and gives rise to an obligation

between two persons not formally bound by any other obligation"

To sustain a case for quasi-delict, the petitioner must establish the following

requisites: "(a) damage suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the defendant;

4
and, ( c) connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant

and the damage incurred by the plaintiff. "

Article 160. Qualifications of Health Personnel. – The physicians, dentists, and

nurses employed by employers pursuant to this Chapter shall have the necessary training

in industrial medicine and occupational safety and health.

Analysis

Liability:

● The liability in this case falls on the hotel, Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila, for the

injuries sustained by the two children who slipped in the swimming pool more

than 10 years ago.

● - The hotel was found liable for negligence in ensuring the safety of the children

and implementing protective measures to prevent accidents in the pool area.

● - The incident where one child hit his head on the edge of the pool, causing

bleeding, and the other child suffered a contusion, resulted in the hotel being held

responsible for the injuries.

Court Ruling:

● Lower Court Rulings: The Metropolitan Trial Court dismissed the complaint,

finding insufficient evidence of negligence. The Regional Trial Court and Court

of Appeals upheld the decision.

● Supreme Court: Karlos filed a Petition for Review.

○ The Supreme Court (SC) ordered Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila to pay

PHP 250,000 in damages to compensate the family of the two children

who were injured in the swimming pool accident.

○ The SC reversed the Court of Appeals (CA) ruling, which had previously

dismissed the complaint for failure to substantiate allegations.

○ The SC emphasized that the hotel was duty-bound to undertake protective

measures to ensure the safety of children and prevent injuries from

5
 unknown or unseen dangers.

○ By ruling in favor of compensating the family, the SC held the hotel

accountable for its negligence in failing to provide a safe environment for

guests, especially children, in the swimming pool area.

Implementation and Mitigation

Actions Taken by Hotel:

○ Compensation: The hotel was ordered by the Supreme Court to pay PHP 250,000

in damages to compensate the family of the children who were injured in the

swimming pool accident.

○ Medical Attention: The children were attended to by the hotel physician after the

incident, indicating that immediate medical attention was provided by the hotel

staff.

○ Legal Response: The hotel faced a lawsuit for negligence filed by the family of

the children, and the case ultimately led to a court ruling in favor of

compensation.

Preventive Measures:

○ Safety Inspections and Maintenance: The hotel could have implemented regular

safety inspections of the pool area and maintained the pool infrastructure to

prevent accidents such as sharp edges that could cause injuries.

○ Warning Signs and Barriers: Installing warning signs or barriers around the pool

area to alert guests, especially children, of potential hazards and restrict access to

dangerous areas.

○ Supervision and Lifeguard Presence: Ensuring the presence of trained lifeguards

or staff members to supervise the pool area and respond promptly to any

emergencies or accidents.

○ Safety Training: Providing safety training to hotel staff on emergency procedures

and protocols for handling incidents in the pool area.

6
 Conclusion

The Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Aleta v. Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila

serves as a significant precedent in upholding the principles of premises liability and the

duty of care that hotels and hospitality establishments owe to their guests, particularly

vulnerable individuals like children.

The court's decision firmly established that Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila failed

to fulfill its responsibility to ensure the safety of the two young children who were

injured in the hotel's swimming pool. By emphasizing the hotel's "duty bound to

undertake protective measures" and "guarantee appropriate safeguards" to shield guests

from unknown or unseen dangers, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message to the

hospitality industry.

This case underscores the importance of hotels and resorts prioritizing the safety

and well-being of their guests above all else. The PHP 250,000 in damages awarded to

the family is a testament to the court's recognition of the gravity of the hotel's negligence

and the lasting impact it had on the lives of the children involved.

Moving forward, this ruling should catalyze for hotels and hospitality

establishments to reevaluate their safety protocols, maintenance procedures, and overall

commitment to providing a secure environment for all their guests. By proactively

addressing potential hazards and implementing robust safety measures, hotels can prevent

similar tragic incidents from occurring and uphold their duty of care to protect the

individuals who entrust their well-being to these establishments.

The Aleta v. Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila case stands as a poignant reminder

that the law will hold property owners accountable for failing to fulfill their

responsibilities, particularly when it comes to the safety of the most vulnerable members

of society. This decision sets a precedent that will undoubtedly shape the future of

premises liability and hotel safety standards in the Philippines.

7
 References

Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2023). Aleta v. Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila (G.R.

No. 228150). Retrieved from

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/228150.pdf

Chan Robles & Associates Law Firm. (n.d.). Article 160. Retrieved from

https://chanrobles.com/legal4labor4.htm#:~:text=Article%20160.,and%20occupational%

20safety%20and%20health

Philippine News Agency. (2023, April 24). Hotel ordered to compensate kids in pool

accident. Retrieved from

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1199179?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1ZDtziC

JYxonLcz490-g5tZ1R2S_pFwlSZBDcBUQFN5bXwNBj8dFDWBqo_aem_SsVlo4NhCf

SMXr9kiUDJ2Q

Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. (2009, May 12). Republic Act No.

9593. Retrieved from

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2009/05/12/republic-act-no-9593/?need_sec_link=1&s

ec_link_scene=im

Jurisprudence Philippines. (n.d.). Philippine Hotel Code of 1987. Retrieved from

https://jur.ph/laws/philippine-hotel-code-of-1987#_

8
 Accomplishment Report

CASE STUDY: Aleta vs. Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila

Section BSHM 3-9

Student Number Names Accomplished

2021-11176 Cielo, Jodelyn Mae C. ● Legal Framework,

● Incident Details

2021-11956 Dumaing, Marc Gabriel V. ● Case Description

● Incident Details

2021-11874 Ignacio, John Lester B. ● Conclusion

2021-11302 Iguet, Noshka Diane C. ● Analysis

2021-11399 Rafael, Michael John A. ● Implementation

Mitigation