View full case

MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL v. ELLEN JOHANNE HARPER

FACTS:

Christian Fredrik Harper, a Norwegian national and Business Development Manager for ALSTOM Power Norway AS, arrived in Manila for a business trip in early November 1999 and checked into Room 1428 of the Shangri-La Hotel in Makati City. Harper was scheduled to check out on November 6, 1999. However, on the morning of that day, hotel staff discovered Harper's lifeless body in his room, bound and with signs of foul play. He had been murdered with tape and ropes, suggesting a brutal homicide. The crime came to light following a suspicious incident at a nearby jewelry store, where a man tried to use Harper's credit cards, raising alarms and prompting checks on Harper's status.

Hotel duty manager Raymond Alarcon, upon request from Harper's family, went with security personnel to check on Harper's room and found his body. Initial investigations by the hotel's Security Manager, Col. Rodrigo de Guzman, and a police team led to the discovery that Harper had been visited by a woman shortly after midnight and a Caucasian male in the early morning hours. Harper's passport, credit cards, laptop, and cash were reported missing. The subsequent police investigation aligned the unexplained entry and activities of the suspects with severe lapses in the hotel's security protocols. Despite the hotel's initial claims of adequate security, it emerged that recommendations for more stringent security measures had been ignored due to financial considerations. This negligence contributed to the circumstances leading to Harper's death, igniting a legal battle initiated by his surviving family for damages attributable to the hotel's failings to prevent such a foreseeable crime on its premises.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the plaintiffs-appellees were able to prove with competent evidence the affirmative allegations in the complaint that they are the widow and son of Mr. Christian Harper.

  2. Whether or not the appellees were able to prove with competent evidence the affirmative allegations in the complaint that there was negligence on the part of the appellant and its said negligence was the proximate cause of the death of Mr. Christian Harper.

  3. Whether or not the proximate cause of the death of Mr. Christian Harper was his own negligence.

RULING:

The appeal lacks merit.

  1. Requirements for authentication of documents establishing respondents' legal relationship with the victim as his heirs were complied with.

    • The Court ruled that the respondents had substantially complied with the requirements set forth under the rules for the authentication of documents. The documents presented were authenticated by the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and further verified by the Philippine Consulate. The principle of substantial compliance and the difficulties faced by overseas litigants were taken into account.

  2. Liability due to negligence.

    • The Court found that petitioner failed to provide adequate security measures expected of a five-star hotel, and such negligence was the proximate cause of Harper's death. The testimony of Col. De Guzman indicated that security precautions at the time were inadequate despite previous warnings and recommendations. The Court concurred with the findings of both the CA and RTC that the hotel's management was negligent in providing sufficient security, which could have prevented Harper’s death.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Substantial Compliance The principle recognizes that exigencies and situations occasionally demand flexibility in the rigid application of procedural rules to facilitate the administration of justice.

  2. Authentication of Foreign Documents Documents kept in foreign countries may be evidenced by a copy attested and accompanied by a certificate verifying the legal custody by officers authorized by the foreign service.

  3. Negligence and Proximate Cause Hotels, imbued with public interest, owe a duty of care not only to provide lodging but also to ensure the safety and security of their guests. Failure to do so constitutes negligence, and if such negligence leads to harm, it is considered the proximate cause of any resulting injury or death.