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.

Ylarde v. Aquino

Federico Ylarde and Adelaida Doronio v. Edgardo Aquino, Mauro Soriano, and CA

1988 / Gancayco [Negligence > Standard of conduct > Children]

Facts

Soriano is the school principal; Aquino and Banez were teachers in this school. Novelito Ylarde is a student [deceased] & Federico is his father.

Gabaldon Primary School, an academic school, was littered with several huge concrete blocks [around one ton each] which were remnants of an old school shop which was destroyed in WWII. Banez [teacher] realized that these stones were huge hazards so he started burying them, and he was able to bury 10 blocks by himself. A fellow teacher Aquino decided to help, so he gathered 18 students and ordered them to dig a  hole where a 1-ton stone could be buried. The following day, he called 4 of these students to continue digging. When the hole was 1m 40cm deep, Aquino alone continued digging while the students remained inside the pit, throwing out loose soil. They got out of the hole when the depth was right. Aquino left the children to level the loose soil around the hole because he went to see Banez (who was 30 meters away) to get a key to the school workroom to get rope. He allegedly told the children not to touch the stone.

     After Aquino left, 3/4 kids jumped inside the pit, Ylarde included. The remaining kid jumped on top of the block, causing it to slide downwards. 2 were able to get out but Ylarde wasn't able to do so, and so the block pinned him to the wall in a standing position. He sustained injuries and three days later, Ylarde died. His parents filed a suit for damages against Aquino and Soriano [principal], but the RTC dismissed the complaint for the following reasons:

• Digging done is in line with Work Education subject
• Aquino exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious person
• Ylarde's death was due to his own reckless imprudence

CA affirmed RTC. Petitioners base their action against Aquino [teacher] on NCC 2176 for his alleged negligence that caused Ylarde's death, while the action against the principal was based on NCC 2180.

Issue and Holding

WON both can be held liable for damages. NO, ONLY AQUINO [TEACHER] IS LIABLE.

Ratio

The principal cannot be held liable because he is a head of an academic school, not a school of arts and trade. SC cited Amadora v. CA wherein it was held NCC 2180 says that in an academic school, it is only the teacher who should be answerable for torts committed by their students, and in a school of arts and trades, it is only the school head who can be held liable. [LegMeth lesson: reddendo singula singulis -- "refers only to the last"]. Also, as admitted by Aquino himself, the principal did not give any instruction regarding the digging.

     Now, here's the twist: Aquino can be held liable under NCC 2180 as the teacher-in-charge. HOWEVER, petitioners base Aquino's alleged liability on NCC 2176. Therefore, the question is WON there were acts and omissions on Aquino's part amounting to fault or negligence which have direct causal relation to Ylarde's death, and the answer is YES. Ylarde would not have died were it not for the unsafe situation created by Aquino. He acted with fault and gross negligence when he:

• Failed to avail himself of services of adult manual laborers and instead utilized his pupils to make an excavation near a 1 ton concrete stone which he knew to be a hazardous task
• Required the children to remain inside the pit even after they finished digging, knowing that the block was nearby
• Ordered them to level the soil when it was apparent that the stone was on the brink of falling
• Went to a place where he would not be able to check on the students' safety
• Left the children close to the excavation, an attractive nuisance

It's totally ridiculous how the lower court found Aquino to have exercised utmost diligence of a very cautious person. The simple warning "not to touch the stone" is of no use, considering the age of these children. He should have made sure that the children are protected from all harm while they are in his company, since he stands in loco parentis to his students.

     Also ridiculous is the claim that the digging work is part of Work Education. For one, Aquino himself said that the principal made no instructions requiring what students were to do. Also, it's not in the lesson plan, since Aquino decided all by himself to help Banez. Also, this activity should not be placed alongside relatively lighter (!) activities such as school gardening, tree planting [which could be legitimately part of the Work Education subject] because these do not expose the children to such risk!

     SC does not agree with lower court that the injuries which led to Ylarde's death were caused by his own reckless imprudence. The degree of care required to be exercised must vary with the capacity of the person endangered to care for himself. A minor should not be held to the same degree of care as an adult, but his conduct should be judged according to the average conduct of persons his age and experience. (Left by themselves and tired from the strenuous digging, it was natural that they would play around. Also note that it was not only Ylarde who jumped into the hole.) Hence, Ylarde cannot be charged with reckless imprudence. 

Jarco Marketing v. CA

Jarco Marketing, Leonardo Kong, Jose Tiope, Elisa Panelo v. CA, Sps. Conrado and Criselda Aguilar

1999 / Davide, Jr. [Negligence > Standard of conduct > Children]

Facts

Jarco Marketing owns Syvel's Department Store; Kong, Tiope, and Panelo are store managers; Sps. Aguilar are the parents of daughter Zhieneth.

Criselda and Zhieneth Aguilar (6 years old) were at the 2nd floor of Syvel's Department Store. Criselda was signing her credit card slip when she felt a sudden gust of wind and heard a loud thud. When she looked behind her, she saw her daughter pinned by the bulk of the store's gift wrapping counter. She asked the assistance of the people around her, and she was immediately rushed to Makati Medical Center where she was operated. The next day, she lost her speech. She died 14 days after the accident. The cause of her death was attributed to the injuries sustained. 

     After her burial, Sps. Aguilar demanded the reimbursement of hospitalization, medical bills, and wake and funeral expenses from the petitioners, but they refused to pay. Sps. Aguilar filed a complaint for damages, seeking the payment of actual [157k~] and moral [300k] damages, attorney's fees [20k], and for loss of income and exemplary damages.

The petitioners denied any liability for Zhieneth's injuries and death. They also said the complaint was malicious, so they sought the dismissal of the complaint and an award of moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney's fees.

• Criselda was negligent in exercising care and diligence over her daughter by allowing her to freely roam around in a store with glassware and appliances
• Zhieneth was guilty of contributory negligence for climbing the counter, thereby triggering its collapse
• Counter was made of sturdy wood with strong support, and it has never fell nor collapsed for the past 15 years since its construction
• Jarco Marketing maintained that it observed due diligence of a good father of the family
• Other petitioners raised due care and diligence in the performance of its duties

RTC found that the preponderance of evidence favored the store, et al, saying that the proximate cause was Zhieneth's act of clinging to the counter, and that Criselda's negligence contributed to the accident. The RTC found that the counter was not an attractive nuisance [something that would attract children to approach, get on or use it], since the counter was situated at the end or corner of the 2nd floor.

Here are the assertions of Sps. Aguilar:

• Zhieneth should be entitled to the conclusive presumption that a child below 9 is incapable of contributory negligence.
• Even if she is capable of contributory negligence, it was physically impossible for her to have propped herself on the counter considering her small frame, and height and weight of the counter.
• The fact that a former employee of the store, Gonzales, accompanied Zhieneth to the hospital belied the theory that Zhieneth climbed the counter.
• This employee Gonzales said that when Zhieneth was asked by the doctor what she did, she said "Nothing, I did not come near the counter and the counter just fell on me." This should be accorded credit according to the spouses.
• Negligence could not be imputed to Criselda since it was reasonable for her to let go of Zhieneth at that moment that she was signing the credit card slip.
• The proximate cause was petitioner's negligence in failing to institute measures to have the counter permanently nailed.

In response, here is what the petitioners have to say:

• Zhieneth's death was an ACCIDENT.
• Nailing the counter to the ground was not necessary because it has been there for the longest time without any prior accident and it's just in a corner.
• The criminal case for homicide through simple negligence filed against them was dismissed, and they were acquitted.

The CA reversed RTC, ruling in favor of Sps. Aguilar. 

• Petitioners were negligent in maintaining a structurally dangerous counter [it's shaped like an inverted L; the top is wider than the base; weight of the upper portion not evenly distributed nor supported by the narrow base]. Two former employees brought this to the attention of the management but the latter ignored their concern. CA said the incident could have been avoided had petitioners repaired this defective counter. The contention that it has been there for a long time without a prior incident is immaterial. 
• Zhieneth was incapable of negligence or other tort.
• Criselda was absolved of any negligence.
• Testimony of Gonzales (former employee) given credit
• Awarded actual damages, compensatory damages [denied award of funeral expenses for lack of proof to substantiate it]

CA denied petitioners' MfR, so they are now seeking the reversal of said decision, saying that since the action is based on tort, any finding of negligence on the part of Sps. Aguilar would negate their claim for damages, where said negligence was the proximate cause of the injury sustained. They also assailed the testimony of Gonzales who was already separated from the store (tarnished by ill-feelings and all).

Issues and Holding

1. WON Zhieneth's death was accidental or attributable to negligence. ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEGLIGENCE
2. WON negligence was attributable to petitioners [for maintaining a defective counter] or to Sps. Aguilar [for failing to exercise due and reasonable care while inside the store]. FAULT OF PETITIONERS

Ratio

Accident v. Negligence - they are intrinsically contradictory

• ACCIDENT pertains to an unforeseen event in which no fault or negligence attaches to defendant (or if it happens wholly or partly through human agency, it is an event which under the circumstances is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens); there is exercise of ordinary care here
• NEGLIGENCE is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do
• • Alternatively, it is the failure to observe, for the protection of another person's interest, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury

Picart v. Smith lays down the test to determine WON negligence exists: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, he is guilty of negligence.

SC found that Zhieneth performed no act that facilitated her death. Basis is her statement to the doctor as related by former employee Gonzales. It was made part of the res gestae since she made the statement immediately subsequent to the startling occurrence. It is axiomatic that matters relating to declarations of pain or suffering and statements made to a physician are generally considered declarations and admissions. Also, the court considered the fact that Zhieneth was of a tender age (and in so much pain!), so it would be unthinkable that she would lie.

Other findings:

• Petitioners were informed of the danger posed by the unstable counter, yet they did not act on the matter, so they failed to discharge the due diligence required of a good father of a family.
• They failed to establish that the testimonies of former employees were biased.
• Conclusive presumption that children below 9 are incapable of contributory negligence is applied.
• • Judge Sangco [book author] says that children below 9 is conclusively presumed to have acted without discernment, and are exempt from criminal liability. Since negligence may be a felony and a QD, it required discernment as a condition of liability, so therefore, said children are presumed to be incapable of negligence.
  • Even if contributory negligence would be attributed to Zhieneth, no injury should have occurred if petitioners' theory that the counter is stable and sturdy is to be believed.
• Criselda is absolved from any contributory negligence, since it was reasonable for her to let go of her child to sign a slip.
• Zhieneth was just a foot away from her mother, and the counter was just four meters away from Criselda (contrary to statements that Zhieneth was loitering at that time).

Heirs of Completo v. Albayda, Jr.

Heirs of Redentor Completo, and Elpidio Abiad v. Sgt. Amando Albayda, Jr.

2010 / Nachura [Negilgence > Standard of conduct > Special circumstance]

Facts

Albayda is a Master Sergeant of the PH Air Force, and Completo was the taxi driver of a Toyota Corolla which was owned by Abiad. Albayda was riding a bike on his way to the office, when Completo's taxi bumped and sideswept him, causing serious physical injuries. He [Albayda] was brought to the PH Air Force General Hospital, but he was transferred to the AFP Medical Center because he sustained a fracture and there was no orthopedic doctor available in the first hospital. He was confined from 27 Aug 1997 to 11 Feb 1998, and again in 23 Feb to 22 Mar 1998 [approx. 7 months].

     Conciliation before the barangay failed, so Albayda filed a complaint for physical injuries through reckless imprudence against Completo before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay. Completo filed a counter-charge of damage to property through reckless imprudence against Albayda. The Office of the City Prosecutor recommended the filing of an information for Albayda's complaint, and Completo's complaint [against Albayda] was dismissed. Albayda manifested his reservation to file a separate civil action for damages against Completo and Abiad.

     Albayda alleged that Completo's negligence is the proximate cause of the incident. He demanded the following damages and their respective amounts: Actual damages - 276,550; Moral damages - 600,000; Exemplary damages - 200,000; Attorney's fees - 25,000 + 1,000 per court appearance. 

     On the other hand, Completo alleged that he was carefully driving the taxicab when he heard a strange sound from the taxicab's rear right side. He found Albayda lying on the road, holding his left leg, so he brought Albayda to PH Air Force General Hospital. Completo asserted that he was an experienced driver, and that he already reduced his speed to 20km even before reaching the intersection. In contrast, Albayda rode his bicycle at high speed, causing him to lose control of the bicycle. Completo said that Albayda had no cause of action.

     Several people testified for each side, but here are some notes on the testimony of the owner of the taxi driver, Abiad. Abiad said that aside from being a soldier, he also held franchises of taxicabs and passenger jeepneys, and being a taxicab operator, he would wake up early to personally check the taxicabs. When Completo applied as a taxicab driver, Abiad required him to show his bio-data, NBI clearance, and driver's license. Completo never figured in a vehicular accident since he was employed, and according to Abiad, he [Completo] was a good driver and good man.

     RTC rendered judgment in favor of Albayda, and the defendants are ordered to pay actual [46k] and moral [400k] damages, and attorney's fees [25k]. Upon appeal at the CA, the court affirmed RTC's decision with modifications [no more actual damages; awarded temperate damages [40k]; moral damages only 200k; Completo and Abiad are solidarily liable to pay Albayda; added legal interest].

Issues and Holding

1. WON CA erred in finding that Completo was the one who caused the collision. NO
2. WON Abiad failed to prove that he observed the diligence of a good father of the family. YES
3. WON the award of moral and temperate damages and attorney's fees for Albayda had no basis. NO / NO / YES

Ratio

On Negligence

It is a rule in negligence suits that the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence the motorist's breach in his duty of care owed to the plaintiff, that the motorist was negligent in failing to exercise the diligence required to avoid injury to the plaintiff, and that such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury suffered. NCC 2176 quoted, and said that the question of the motorist's negligence is a question of fact. Usually, more will be required of a motorist [25mi/hr = 37ft/sec] than a bicyclist [10mi/hr = 15ft/sec] in discharging the duty of care because of the physical advantages the former has over the latter.

It was proven by a preponderance of evidence that Completo failed to exercise reasonable diligence.

• He was overspeeding at the time he hit Albayda's bicycle; he did not slow down even when he approached the intersection
• Such negligence was the sole and proximate cause of the injuries sustained by Albayda
• It was proven that Albayda had the right of way since he reached the intersection ahead of Completo

NCC 2180 cited - obligation imposed by NCC 2176 is demandable also for those persons for whom one is responsible. Employers are liable for damage caused by employees, but the responsibility ceases upon proof that employers observed the diligence of the good father of the family in the selection and supervision of employees. The burden of proof is on the employer. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for QD is solidary. The employer's civil liability for his employee's negligent acts is also primary and direct, owing to his own negligence in selecting and supervising them, and this liability attaches even if the employer is not in the vehicle at the time of collision.

     In the selection of employees, employers are required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience, and service records. With respect to supervision, employers should formulate SOPs and monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for breaches. To establish these factors in a trial involving the issue of vicarious [secondary] liability, employers must submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence. 

ABIAD'S EVIDENCE CONSISTED ENTIRELY OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE, AND THIS IS INSUFFICIENT TO OVERCOME THE LEGAL PRESUMPTION THAT HE WAS NEGLIGENT IN THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF COMPLETO.

On Damages

CA rightfully deleted the award of actual damages because Albayda failed to present documentary evidence to establish the amount incurred. Temperate damages may be recovered when the court finds that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty. Moral damages are awarded in QDs causing physical injuries, so the award is proper. The award of attorney's fees is deleted for failure to prove that petitioners acted in bad faith in refusing to satisfy respondent's just and valid claim.