Case Digest (G.R. No. 180440)
Facts:
Dr. Genevieve L. Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc., Dusit Thani Public Co., Ltd. and First Lepanto Taisho Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 180440, December 05, 2012, Second Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Dr. Genevieve L. Huang (a dermatologist) filed a Complaint for Damages on 28 August 1996 against respondents Philippine Hoteliers, Inc. (PHI) and Dusit Thani Public Co., Ltd. (DTPCI) (owners/manager of Dusit Thani Hotel Manila) and co-respondent First Lepanto Taisho Insurance Corporation (insurer). The complaint alleged that on 11 June 1995 petitioner, invited by hotel guest Delia, remained in the hotel swimming pool area after closing, that the hotel staff untimely turned off the lights and locked the main entrance, and that while petitioner sought a house phone she was struck on the head by a folding wooden countertop that fell, causing serious brain injury and permanent disability; petitioner also alleged inadequate medical assistance thereafter.
Petitioner presented evidence of MRI and EEG studies and medical opinions from several neurologists and neurosurgeons (in the Philippines and the U.S.) diagnosing post‑traumatic/post‑concussion injuries, and she sent a demand letter on 25 October 1995 seeking not less than P100,000,000. Respondents denied negligence: they maintained the pool hours were posted (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) but lights were ordinarily kept on until 10:00 p.m., that hotel nurse Pearlie Benedicto‑Lipana and in‑house physician Dr. Violeta Dalumpines attended and offered assistance (which petitioner declined), and that petitioner herself admitted in contemporaneous writings and a hospital certification that she lifted the hinged wooden counter top which then fell on her head.
At trial the Regional Trial Court (Branch 56, Makati City) dismissed petitioner’s Complaint in a Decision dated 21 February 2006, finding petitioner’s testimony self‑serving and unsupported, that she failed to prove the pool was dark, that she admitted lifting the counter, that respondents promptly rendered medical aid (which petitioner declined), and that causal connection between the June 1995 incident and the alleged permanent brain damage was not established; medical reports not testified to by their authors were deemed hearsay. The RTC also held that absent liability of PHI/DTPCI, the insurer First Lepanto was not liable.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in a Decision dated 9 August 2007 (CA‑G.R. CV No. 87065), concluding petitioner’s cause of action was properly one for quasi‑delict, that she could not change theory on appeal to an implied contract, that negligence was not proved (and contributory negligence existed), and that doctrines of res ipsa loquitur and respondeat superior did not apply. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated 5 November 2007.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 in the Supreme Court, challenging the factual findings, the characteriz...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals conclusive and binding on this Court in this Rule 45 petition?
- Were respondents PHI and DTPCI responsible to petitioner by implied contract to exercise due care for her safety and welfare while on hotel premises?
- Can petitioner base her cause of action on both breach of contract and quasi‑delict when she pleaded only quasi‑delict below?
- Are the doctrines of res ipsa loquitur and respondeat superior applicable to hold respondents liable for petitioner’s injury?
- Did petitioner prove that her debilitating and permanent injuries were proximately caused by the 11 June 1995 accident at the hotel?
- Is petitioner entitled to actual, moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, interest and costs?
- Is respondent First Lepanto directly liable to petitioner under its insurance contract notwithstanding the hotel’s nonliability? ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)