Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District
104 Phil. 397
- Facts: Dominador Ong, 14-year old son of plaintiffs, in company with two of his brothers went to swim at the defendant’s swimming pool. After paying the admission fee they went to one of the small pools where the water was shallow. Later Dominador told his brothers that he was going to the locker room in an adjoining building to drink a bottle of coke. Upon hearing this, his two brothers went to the bigger pool. Later another boy in the swimming pool informed a lifeguard employed by the defendant that somebody was swimming underwater for quite a long time. The lifeguard immediately jumped into the big swimming pool and retrieved te apparently lifeless body of Dominador Ong from the bottom. Artificial respiration and a resuscitator were applied by employees of the defendant upon Dominador for the purpose of reviving him. A doctor was summoned by employees of the defendant to revive the boy but all to no avail. This action was instituted by the parents of the boy to recover damages from the defendant for the death of their son.
- Held: There is sufficient evidence to show that the defendant has taken all necessary precautions to avoid danger to the lives of its patrons or prevent accident which may cause their death. The swimming pools were provided with a ring buoy, toy roof, towing line, oxygen resuscitator and first aid medicine kit. The bottom of the pool was painted with black colors to ensure clear visibility. Rules and regulations were displayed in a conspicuous place. Six trained lifeguards were employed and their schedules were arranged so that tow guards were on duty at a time. A male nurse, a sanitary inspector and security guards were also employed. When the body of Dominador was retrieved the employees of the defendant did everything possible to bring him back to life. Under these circumstances the defendant proved that it did what was humanly possible to restore the life of the deceased. Defendant was, therefore, absolved from liability to the plaintiffs.
Same: Distinction of liability of employers under Art. 2180 and their liability for breach of contract.
The liability of owners, managers and employers for the negligence of their employees under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code should be distinguished from the liability of such owners, managers and employers for the negligence of their employees resulting in a breach of contract. The liability of owners, managers and employers for the negligence of their employees constituting breach of contract is governed by Arts. 1170, 1172 and 1173 of the Civil Code and not by Art. 2180 of the same Code. This distinction and the legal consequences arising therefrom is clearly discussed by the Supreme Court in the following