NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN and RUBY LIM v. ROBERTO REYES
2005 / Chico-Nazario /
Petition for review on certiorari of CA decision and resolution
Defenses against charge of negligence > Plaintiff’s
assumption of risk / volenti non fit
injuria
Cause of action was one for damages brought under the
human relations provisions of NCC.
Roberto Reyes[1] said he was spotted by his
friend Dr. Violeta Filart in the hotel lobby who approached him. She invited
him to join her in the GM’s birthday party at the penthouse. He carried
Filart’s present—a basket of fruits. When dinner was ready, Reyes lined up at
the table but to his embarrassment, he was stopped by Ruby Lim (Hotel Executive
Secretary). In a loud voice and within the presence and hearing of other
guests, Lim told him to leave—huwag ka
nang kumain, hindi ka imbitado, bumaba ka na lang. Reyes tried to explain
that he was invited by Dr. Filart, but the latter ignored him. He was escorted
out by a police officer.
Ruby Lim said she was the hotel’s executive secretary
for 20 years, and that she was tasked to organize the GM’s birthday party. Mindful
of the GM’s request to keep the party intimate, she requested 2 people to tell
Reyes to leave, but Reyes still lingered. She had the chance to talk to Reyes
when he was starting to eat, so she told him, Alam ninyo, hindi ho kayo dapat nandito. Pero total nakakuha na ho kayo
ng pagkain, ubusin na lang ninyo at pagkatapos kung pwede lang po umalis na
kayo. Reyes made a scene by screaming and he threatened to dump food on
her.
Dr. Filart said Reyes volunteered to carry the basket
of fruits as he was going to the elevator as well. When they reached the
penthouse, she told him to go down as he was not invited. She thought Reyes
already left but she saw him at the bar. When there was a commotion, she saw
Reyes shouting, and she ignored him, as she did not want the GM to think that
she invited him.
Reyes claimed damages (1M actual damages, 1M moral
and/or exemplary damages, 200k attorney’s fees). RTC dismissed the complaint, giving more credence to Lim’s
testimony. RTC also said that Reyes assumed the risk of being thrown out of the
party as he was not invited. CA reversed
RTC, believing Reyes’ version of the facts. Lim and Hotel Nikko contend that they cannot be made liable for damages
under the doctrine of volenti non fit
injuria as Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave (and being
embarrassed and humiliated in the process) as he was a “gate-crasher.”
DOCTRINE OF VOLENTI
NON FIT INJURIA DOES NOT FIND APPLICATION IN THIS CASE
- Volenti non fit injuria (to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury)—Self-inflicted injury or consent to injury which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so
- Even if Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave the party, petitioners were still under obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him to unnecessary ridicule and shame. [NCC 19, 21]
SC FINDS RTC’S FINDINGS OF FACT MORE CREDIBLE—Lim did not abuse her right to ask Reyes to leave the
party as she talked to him politely and discreetly
- Lim, mindful of GM’s instruction to keep the party intimate, would naturally want to get rid of Reyes in the most hush-hush manner so as not to call attention
- Reyes was not able to explain why Lim would make a scene; Reyes admitted that when Lim talked to him, she was so close enough for him to kiss à unlikely that she would shout at him at such a close distance (SC also noted the fact that she has been in the hotel business long enough as to imbibe virtues of politeness and discreteness)
- Reyes was not able to present witnesses to back up his story; all his witnesses proved only that Filart invited him to the party
LIM AND HOTEL NIKKO NOT LIABLE TO PAY FOR DAMAGES UNDER
NCC 19 AND 21
- NCC 19 (principle of abuse of rights) is not a panacea for all human hurts and social grievances; NCC 19’s object is to set certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s duties; its elements are the following:
- Legal right or duty
- Exercised in bad faith
- For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another
- NCC 21 refers to acts contra bonus mores and has the following elements:
- There is an act which is legal
- But it is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, public policy
- And it is done with intent to injure
- Common theme running through NCC 19 and 21–act must be INTENTIONAL
- Reyes has not shown that Lim was driven by animosity against him; he had a lame argument: Lim, being single at 44, had a very strong bias and prejudice against him possibly influenced by her associates in her work at the hotel with foreign businessmen
- Manner by which Lim asked Reyes to leave was acceptable and humane
Any damage which Reyes might have suffered through
Lim’s exercise of a legitimate right done within the bounds of propriety and
good faith must be his to bear alone.
[1] Actor of long standing;
co-host of radio program; board member of Music Singer Composer chaired by
Imelda Papin; showbiz coordinator of Citizen Crime Watch; 1992 official
candidate for Bohol governor
No comments:
Post a Comment