G.R. No. 180440 - Huang vs. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc.

Petitioner Dr. Genevieve L. Huang, a dermatologist, was invited by hotel guest Delia Goldberg to swim at the Dusit Thani Hotel Manila pool on 11 June 1995.
Respondents Philippine Hoteliers, Inc. (PHI) and Dusit Thani Public Co., Ltd. (DTPCI) owned and managed the hotel; First Lepanto Taisho Insurance Corporation insured it.

At about 7:00 p.m. (pool closing time), lights in the pool area were allegedly turned off and the exit door locked. In darkness, petitioner sought a house phone behind the lifeguard’s counter.
To reach the phone, she lifted a folding wooden countertop, which then fell and struck her head, causing a large hematoma and serious brain injury.

Delay in rescue: hotel staff took 20–30 minutes to unlock the door; they applied an ice pack and ointment. Petitioner refused further assistance and a waiver presented by the hotel physician.
Returning home, she suffered dizziness, headaches, memory loss, sleeplessness, and missed work. She underwent MRI, EEG, X-rays, and consultations with multiple neurologists and a neurosurgeon, who diagnosed post-concussion syndrome, permanent brain injury, epilepsy risk, neck sprain, and vitreous detachment in the right eye.

On 25 October 1995 petitioner’s counsel demanded ₱100 million for loss of future earnings; no response. She filed a Complaint for Damages on 28 August 1996 against PHI, DTPCI, and First Lepanto.
Respondents denied negligence, asserted adequate lighting until 10 p.m., security notices, and prompt medical assistance. They argued petitioner’s own negligence in overstaying and lifting the counter.

Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City (21 February 2006): dismissed the complaint for lack of merit—petitioner’s testimony “self-serving,” no proof of dark conditions, own negligence as proximate cause, hearsay medical reports, and no insurer liability.
Court of Appeals (CA) (9 August 2007, Resolution 5 November 2007): affirmed RTC—found cause of action in quasi-delict, petitioner assumed risk by overstaying, lifted the counter herself, and failed to prove causal link between accident and alleged permanent injuries.

Are the RTC’s and CA’s factual findings conclusive in this Rule 45 petition?
Are respondents PHI and DTPCI liable to petitioner by implied contract to exercise due care?
May petitioner base her cause of action simultaneously on breach of contract and on quasi-delict?
Are PHI and DTPCI liable for negligence under res ipsa loquitur or respondeat superior?
Were petitioner’s permanent injuries caused by the 11 June 1995 accident?
Is petitioner entitled to actual, moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, interest, and costs?
Is the insurer First Lepanto directly liable to petitioner?
Was petitioner’s CA Motion for Reconsideration pro forma?