View full case

NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN v. ROBERTO REYES

FACTS:

Mr. Reyes, using the screen name "Amay Bisaya," attended a birthday party at Hotel Nikko without being officially invited by the host, Mr. Tsuruoka. However, Dr. Violeta Filart allowed him to join her and took responsibility for his attendance. During the party, Ruby Lim, the Executive Secretary of Hotel Nikko, approached several people to inquire about Mr. Reyes' presence, which made him feel humiliated.

The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that Mr. Reyes had no right to be at the party and assumed the risk of being asked to leave. The trial court also held that no recovery could be granted against Hotel Nikko and Ruby Lim as Mr. Reyes himself was at fault.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling. The Court of Appeals found that Lim's act of ordering Mr. Reyes to leave in a loud voice, within hearing distance of several guests, was contrary to morals and good customs. They also ruled that Lim's approach to several people to inquire about Mr. Reyes' presence exposed him to ridicule and was unnecessary. The Court of Appeals held both Lim and Filart liable for damages caused by their actions.

The Court of Appeals imposed exemplary damages, moral damages, and attorney's fees against Hotel Nikko, Ruby Lim, and Dr. Violeta Filart. Hotel Nikko and Ruby Lim filed a petition for review, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in not applying the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria as Mr. Reyes was a gate-crasher. They also challenged the joint and several liability of Hotel Nikko and Ruby Lim with Dr. Filart. They further argued that the Court of Appeals departed from the findings of fact of the trial court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria applies in this case.

  2. Whether Hotel Nikko and Ruby Lim are jointly and severally liable with Dr. Filart for damages.

  3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in departing from the findings of fact of the trial court regarding the circumstances that allegedly caused the humiliation of Amay Bisaya.

  4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Amay Bisaya was treated unjustly because of his poverty.

  5. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to pass upon the issue on the defects of the appellant's brief.

  6. Whether or not the act of asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party constitutes abuse of rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code.

  7. Whether or not the employer, Hotel Nikko, can be held liable for the actions of its employee, Ms. Lim.

  8. Whether or not the act of personally approaching Mr. Reyes without verifying with Mrs. Filart gives rise to a cause of action based on rudeness or lack of consideration.

  9. Whether or not exemplary damages should be imposed upon the appellees.

  10. Whether or not Mr. Reyes' damages should be borne by Ms. Lim and Hotel Nikko.

RULING:

  1. The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria does not apply in this case because even if the respondent assumed the risk of being asked to leave the party, the petitioners were still under an obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him to unnecessary ridicule and shame.

  2. Hotel Nikko and Ruby Lim are held solidarily liable with Dr. Filart for damages.

  3. The Court of Appeals did not err in departing from the findings of fact of the trial court, as a review of the evidence showed that the lower court's findings were more credible.

  4. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Amay Bisaya was treated unjustly because of his poverty, as this was never an issue and no evidence was presented in this regard.

  5. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to pass upon the issue on the defects of the appellant's brief, departing from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings.

  6. No. The act of asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party does not constitute abuse of rights. There is no proof of motive on the part of Ms. Lim to humiliate Mr. Reyes and expose him to ridicule and shame. Ms. Lim's request was meant to be heard by Mr. Reyes only, and there was no intention to cause embarrassment to him.

  7. No. Since Ms. Lim is not liable for damages, her employer, Hotel Nikko, cannot be held liable as its liability is based on the actions of its employee.

  8. No. Ms. Lim's act of personally approaching Mr. Reyes without verifying with Mrs. Filart does not give rise to a cause of action based on rudeness or lack of consideration. There is no proof of any ill-motive on her part, and her actions were done with good intentions.

  9. Exemplary damages should not be imposed upon the appellees. The Court found that the conclusion reached by the appellate court, imposing exemplary damages, is without basis since it is not disputed that at the time of the incident Mr. Reyes had income and there is no information on the social and economic standing of petitioner Ruby Lim.

  10. Mr. Reyes' damages should be borne by him alone. The Court held that any damage suffered by Mr. Reyes through Ms. Lim's exercise of a legitimate right done within the bounds of propriety and good faith should be his own to bear.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Doctrine of volenti non fit injuria: Refers to self-inflicted injury or the 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.

  • Solidary liability: When two or more persons are liable for the same obligation in such a way that each is liable for the entire obligation, the obligation is considered solidary.

  • The principle of abuse of rights under Article 19 of the Civil Code sets certain standards for the exercise of rights and the performance of duties, such as acting with justice, giving everyone their due, and observing honesty and good faith.

  • Article 21 of the Civil Code pertains to acts that are contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, and are done with intent to injure.

  • A complaint based on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code must fail if it lacks proof of intention and relies on innuendos and conjectures.

  • An employer can be held liable for the actions of its employee if the employee is found to be liable for damages.

  • Exemplary damages should be imposed upon appellees when the acts committed are malicious in nature or done in a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive, or malevolent manner.

  • Damages must be borne by the party who suffered the harm and not by others if the act complained of is done within the bounds of propriety and good faith.