Nikko Hotel v. Reyes

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

PLDT v. CA

PLDT v. CA and Sps. Antonio and Gloria Esteban

1989 / Regalado / Petition for review on certiorari of CA resolution

Defenses against charge of negligence > Plaintiff's negligence is proximate cause

FACTS

Sps. Esteban were riding their jeep along the inside lane of Lacson Street where they resided [at 25km/hr as Antonio Esteban claimed; CA said jeep ran fast; if the jeep braked at that speed, the spouses would not have been thrown against the windshield]. The jeep abruptly swerved from the inside lane, then it ran over a mound of earth and fell into an open trench, an excavation allegedly undertaken by PLDT for the installation of its underground conduit system. Antonio failed to notice the open trench which was left uncovered because of the darkness and the lack of any warning light or signs. The spouses were thrown against the windshield. Gloria Esteban allegedly sustained injuries on her arms, legs and face, leaving a permanent scar on her cheek, while Antonio suffered cut lips. The jeep's windshield was also shattered.

          PLDT denies liability, contending that the injuries sustained by the spouses were due to their own negligence, and that it should be the independent contractor L.R. Barte and Co. [Barte] who should be held liable. PLDT filed a third-party complaint against Barte, alleging that under the terms of their agreement, PLDT should not be answerable for any accident or injuries arising from the negligence of Barte or its employees. Barte claimed that it was not aware, nor was it notified of the accident, and that it complied with its contract with PLDT by installing the necessary and appropriate signs.

          RTC ruled in favor of the spouses. CA reversed RTC and dismissed the spouses' complaint, saying that the spouses were negligent. Later, it set aside its earlier decision and affirmed in totoRTC's decision. (SC declared this later decision null and void. The first decision already became final and executory because no appeal was taken seasonably.)

ISSUE AND HOLDING

WON PLDT is liable for the injuries sustained by Sps. Esteban. NO

RATIO

The accident which befell the spouses was due to the lack of diligence of Antonio, and was not imputable to the negligent omission on the part of PLDT. If the accident did not happen because thejeep was running quite fast on the inside lane and for some reason or other it had to swerve suddenly to the right and had to climb over the accident mound, then Antonio had not exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to avoid the accident. With the drizzle, he should not have run on dim lights, but should have put on his regular lights which should have made him see the accident mound in time. The mound was relatively big and visible, being 2-3 ft high and 1-1/2 ft wide. Also, he knew of the existence and location of the mound, having seen it many previous times. 

          The negligence of Antonio was not only contributory to his and his wife's injuries but goes to thevery cause of the occurrence of the accident, as one of its determining factors, and therebyprecludes their right to recover damages. The perils of the road were known to the spouses. By exercising reasonable care and prudence, Antonio could have avoided the injurious consequences of his act, even assuming arguendo that there was some alleged negligence on the part of PLDT.

          The omission to perform a duty, such as the placing of warning signs on the site of the excavation, constitutes the proximate cause only when the doing of the said omitted act would have prevented the injury. As a resident of Lacson Street, he passed on that street almost everyday and had knowledge of the presence and location of the excavations there; hence, the presence of warning signs could not have completely prevented the accident. Furthermore, Antonio had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, notwithstanding the negligence he imputes to PLDT. 

          A person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the burden of proving the existence of such fault or negligence causative thereof, otherwise, his action must fail. The facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively established by competent evidence. In this case, there was insufficient evidence to prove any negligence on the part of PLDT. What was presented was just the self-serving testimony of Antonio and the unverified photograph of a portion of the scene of the accident. The absence of a police report and the non-submission of a medical report from the hospital where the spouses were allegedly treated have not even been explained.