Facts:

In the case of Bagumbayan Corporation vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-66274, decided on September 30, 1984, the dispute centers around an incident involving the respondents, spouses Lelisa Sena and Arturo Sena, along with their four children, who visited the Tropical Palace Hotel in Parañaque, Metro Manila, on the evening of December 20, 1976, to watch the Reycard Duet Show. While seated at their table and before the show commenced, a waiter, Baez, accidentally overturned a tray of drinks that ended up spilling on Lelisa, soaking her clothes. Following the incident, Lelisa experienced physical discomfort due to the cold, embarrassment from the incident, and mental shock as onlookers reacted to what had transpired. The drinks and shattered glass also reportedly damaged her clothing and personal items, valued at approximately 1,000 pesos.

Lelisa was taken to the ladies' room to change, where she asserted that no assistance was provided, such as a towel for her pr

...

Facts:

Background of the Incident

• The case involves a customer’s claim for moral and exemplary damages allegedly due to the negligence of a waiter.
• On the evening of December 20, 1976, Lelisa Sena, her husband Arturo Sena, and their four children attended the Reycard Duet Show at the Tropical Palace Hotel in Parañaque, Metro Manila.
• The entertainment venue was crowded with excitement and confusion typical of such events.

The Incident

• The Senas occupied a table and ordered drinks prior to the commencement of the show.
• While a waiter named Baez was serving them, the tray carrying the drinks was allegedly overturned.
• As a result, Lelisa Sena was drenched by the spilled drinks, causing her dress, handbag, and shoes to be damaged. The ruined outfit was valued at approximately one thousand pesos.
• Lelisa experienced a chill soon after and was forced to remove her wet dress and underwear in a ladies’ room with inadequate facilities (no available towel or chair), attracting the attention of others.

Reactions and Subsequent Developments

• Testimonies revealed that Lelisa felt shocked, embarrassed, and believed some persons were laughing at or pitying her.
• Her husband, Arturo Sena, testified that the incident infuriated him particularly due to the management’s failure to offer any apology that evening.
• A waitress assisted Lelisa to the ladies’ room, and two of her daughters accompanied her, increasing the exposure of the incident.
• Lawyer Francisco Gatchalian, present at the table, described the incident as “one of those unavoidable things.”

Corporate Response and Procedural History

• The Senas initiated an action against Bagumbayan Corporation, the employer of the waiter, claiming:
• Actual damages amounting to P200,000.
• Attorney’s fees of P10,000.
• Moral damages of P100,000 for both Lelisa and Arturo Sena, citing embarrassment and the lack of an apology.
• Exemplary damages in the same amount to serve as a corrective measure against the management.
• In its answer, the corporation contended:
• It was unaware of the incident until service of summons.
• Had proper notice been given on the night of the incident, an immediate apology and appropriate disciplinary measures would have been implemented.
• The incident was considered a fortuitous event even as it expressed regret and a willingness to make amends.
• The trial court awarded the Senas:
• P1,540 as actual damages (comprising the value of the ruined outfit and the cost of six show tickets).
• P50,000 as moral damages.
• P10,000 as exemplary damages.
• P5,000 as attorney’s fees.
• The Intermediate Appellate Court modified this judgment by reducing the moral and exemplary damages to P15,000 and P5,000, respectively.
• The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court on appeal.

Issue:

• Whether the awarding of moral and exemplary damages is justified under the applicable provisions of the Civil Code (specifically Articles 2176, 2180, 2217, 2219, and 2220) in a quasi-delict action.
• Whether the alleged negligence of the waiter—and thereby the corporation’s vicarious liability—constitutes a basis for awarding damages beyond actual damages given the absence of gross negligence or willful misconduct.
• Whether the management’s subsequent apology in open court sufficiently mitigates the claim for moral or exemplary damages.
• If the so-called “embarrassment” experienced by Mrs. Sena qualifies as the kind of mental anguish that legally justifies recovery for moral damages.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)