8/10/2019 80 Ong vs Metropolitan

1/3

80 Ong vs. Metropolitan Water District

L-7644 August 29, 1958 |

DOCTRINE

The doctrine of last clear chance simply means that the negligence of a claimant doesnot preclude a recovery for the negligence of defendant where it appears that the latter,by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have avoided injuriousconsequences to claimant notwithstanding his negligence. Or, as the doctrine usually isstated, a person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident,notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or the negligence of a third personwhich is imputed to his opponent, is considered in law solely responsible for theconsequences of the accident.

FACTS

Metropolitan owns 3 swimming pools at its filters in Balara, Quezon City

It charges the public a certain fee if such wanted to use its pools

Dominador Ong, 14 years of age, son of petitioners, went to the pools along with his 2brothers

He stayed in the shallow pool, but then he told his brothers that he would getsomething to drink. His brothers left him and went to the Deep pool

Around 4pm that day, a bather reported that one person was swimming to long underwater

Upon hearing this, the lifeguard on duty dove into the pool to retrieve Ongs lifelessbody. Applying first aid, the lifeguard tried to revive the boy.

Soon after, m ale nurse Armando Rule came to render assistance, followed by sanitaryinspector Iluminado Vicente who, after being called by phone from the clinic by one ofthe security guards, boarded a jeep carrying with him the resuscitator and a medicinekit, and upon arriving he injected the boy with camphorated oil. After the injection,Vicente left on a jeep in order to fetch Dr. Ayuyao from the University of the Philippines.Meanwhile, Abao continued the artificial manual respiration, and when this failed torevive him, they applied the resuscitator until the two oxygen tanks were exhausted

Investigation was concluded and the cause of death is asphyxia by submersion inwater (pagkalunod)

8/10/2019 80 Ong vs Metropolitan

2/3

The parents of Ong bring this action for damages against Metropolitan, al legingnegligence on the selection and supervision of its employees and if not negligent, theyhad the last clear chance to revive Ong.

It is to be noted that Metropolitan had complete safety measures in place: they had a

male nurse, six lifeguards, ring buoys, toy roof, towing line, saving kit and a resuscitator.There is also a sanitary inspector who is in charge of a clinic established for the benefitof the patrons. Defendant has also on display in a conspicuous place certain rules andregulations governing the use of the pools, one of which prohibits the swimming in thepool alone or without any attendant. Although defendant does not maintain a full- timephysician in the swimming pool compound, it has however a nurse and a sanitaryinspector ready to administer injections or operate the oxygen resuscitator if the needshould arise

ISSUES & ARGUMENTS

W/N Metropolitan is liable to the Ongs for its negligence.

W/N the last clear chance doctrine may be invoked in this case.

HOLDING & RATIO DECIDENDI

No. Metropolitan is not negligent

Metropolitan has taken all necessary precautions to avoid danger to the lives of itspatrons. It has been shown that the swimming pools of appellee are provided with a ringbuoy, toy roof, towing line, oxygen resuscitator and a first aid medicine kit. The bottomof the pools is painted with black colors so as to insure clear visibility. There is ondisplay in a conspicuous place within the area certain rules and regulations governingthe use of the pools. Appellee employs six lifeguards who are all trained as they hadtaken a course for that purpose and were issued certificates of proficiency. Theselifeguards work on schedule prepared by their chief and arranged in such a way as tohave two guards at a time on duty to look after the safety of the bathers. There is a malenurse and a sanitary inspector with a clinic provided with oxygen resuscitator. And thereare security guards who are available always in case of emergency.

The record also shows that when the body of min or Ong was retrieved from the bottomof the pool, the employees of appellee did everything possible to bring himback to life.When they found that the pulse of the boy was abnormal, the inspector immediatelyinjected him with camphorated oil. When the manual artificial respiration provedineffective they applied the oxygen resuscitator until its contents were exhausted. Andwhile all these efforts were being made, they sent for Dr. Ayuyao from the University ofthe Philippines who however came late because upon examining the body found him to

8/10/2019 80 Ong vs Metropolitan

3/3

be already dead. All of the foregoing shows that appellee has done what is humanlypossible under the circumstances to restore life to minor Ong and for that reason it isunfair to hold it liable for his death

The Last Clear Chance Doctrine is inapplicable in this case

The record does not show how minor Ong came into the big swimming pool. The onlything the record discloses is that minor Ong informed his elder brothers that he wasgoing to the locker room to drink a bottle of coke but that from that time on nobody knewwhat happened to him until his lifeless body was retrieved. The doctrine of last clearchance simply means that the negligence of a claimant does not preclude a recovery forthe negligence of defendant where it appears that the latter, by exercising reasonablecare and prudence, might have avoided injurious consequences to claimantnotwithstanding his negligence

Since it is not known how minor Ong came into the big swimming pool and it beingapparent that he went there without any companion in violation of one of the regulationsof appellee as regards the use of the pools, and it appearing that lifeguard Abaoresponded to the call for help as soon as his attention was called to it and immediatelyafter retrieving the body all efforts at the disposal of appellee had been put into play inorder to bring him back to life, it is clear that there is no room for the application of thedoctrine now invoked by appellants to impute liability to appellee.