Case Summary (G.R. No. 180440)
Petitioner and Respondents
Petitioner sued PHI and DTPCI for damages under a theory of negligence (quasi-delict) and named First Lepanto as co-defendant under the hotel’s liability policy.
Key Dates
• June 11, 1995 – Incident at the hotel swimming pool area.
• August 28, 1996 – Complaint for Damages filed in RTC Makati (Civil Case No. 96-1367).
• February 21, 2006 – RTC Decision dismissing complaint for lack of merit.
• August 9, 2007 – Court of Appeals Decision affirming RTC.
• November 5, 2007 – Court of Appeals Resolution denying reconsideration.
• December 5, 2012 – Supreme Court Decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision post-1990).
• Civil Code (Art. 2176) governing quasi-delict: fault or negligence, damage, and causal connection.
• Principles of burden of proof under Rule 131, Sec. 1, Rules of Court.
Procedural History
Petitioner alleged that hotel staff negligently turned off lights and locked the pool exit, leading her to search for a phone. A folding wooden countertop allegedly fell on her head, causing brain injury. After dismissal by the RTC for lack of merit, the CA affirmed. Petitioner sought certiorari under Rule 45.
Facts
After swimming with a guest, petitioner was informed the pool was closing at 7:00 p.m. She and her companion showered, found the pool area dark and the door locked, and walked to a phone behind a counter. While lifting a hinged countertop, it fell and struck her head. Hotel staff arrived within 20–30 minutes, provided first aid, and the in-house physician offered further treatment, which petitioner refused. Petitioner later underwent multiple medical evaluations, claiming permanent brain and eye injury, and sent a demand for ₱100 million.
Trial Court Findings
• Petitioner’s testimony was self-serving and uncorroborated (companion not presented).
• Hotel routinely kept pool lights on until 10:00 p.m. for security, cleaning, and adjacent gym use.
• Petitioner assumed risk by overstaying beyond closing hour and by lifting the countertop herself.
• Medical assistance was promptly offered and accepted only minimally; petitioner refused further care.
• Medical reports by various doctors were hearsay (authors not produced), and petitioner had prior neurological conditions.
• Petitioner failed to prove negligence, causal link, or damages attributable to the hotel.
Court of Appeals Ruling
• Petitioner’s use of the pool was as invitee, not under contract, making Art. 2176 (quasi-delict) governing.
• Three factors negated negligence: petitioner knew closing time, admitted lifting the countertop, and walked safely in the dark enough to find the phone.
• Proximate cause was petitioner’s own negligence.
• Petitioner failed to prove damages directly resulting from the accident.
Issues on Petition
- Conclusiveness of lower-courts’ factual findings.
- Existence of implied contract imposing duty of care.
- Dual theories of breach of contract and tort.
- Applicability of res ipsa loquitur and respondeat superior.
- Causation of permanent injuries.
- Entitlement to various damages and fees.
- Insurer’s direct liability.
- Merits of CA reconsideration motion.
Supreme Court Analysis
• Review under Rule 45 is limited to errors of law; factual findings of RTC and CA are conclusive absent compelling exception (none present).
• Judge who penned RTC Decision need not be same who tried the case; presumption of regularity and full review of records.
Cause of Action: Quasi-Delict versus Contract
• Petitioner’s Complaint was grounded solely on quasi-delict; breach-of-contract theory was first raised on appeal and cannot be entertained.
• Change of theory on appeal is barred; plaintiff is bound by cause of action pleaded.
Burden of Proof and Negligence
• Under quasi-delict, plaintiff must prove negligence, damage, and causal link by preponderance.
• Petitioner failed to present credible evidence of hotel negligence; burden remains hers.
Res Ipsa Loquitur and Respondeat Superior Doctrines
• R
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 180440)
Factual Background
- On 11 June 1995, Dr. Genevieve L. Huang (petitioner), invited by registered guest Delia Goldberg, used the swimming pool facility of Dusit Thani Hotel Manila.
- They bathed from about 5:00 p.m.; at 7:00 p.m. the attendant announced the pool was closing. They proceeded to the adjacent shower room.
- Upon exiting, they found the pool area pitch dark and the main exit door locked. After waiting about ten minutes, petitioner sought a house phone behind the lifeguard’s counter.
- While bending to reach the phone, she was struck on the head by a folding wooden countertop, causing a serious brain injury and hematoma.
- Delia alerted hotel staff by phone; it took 20–30 minutes for maintenance personnel with a key to enter. Three chambermaids applied ice and ointment and assisted petitioner to the coffee shop.
- The hotel physician, Dr. Violeta Dalumpines, arrived but first presented a waiver for petitioner’s signature. Petitioner refused to sign and declined further in-house medical treatment.
- Petitioner experienced dizziness, severe headaches, memory loss, sleepless nights, and missed professional appointments.
- Between June 1995 and 1999, she consulted multiple specialists (neurologists, neuro-surgeons, ophthalmologist) and underwent MRI, EEG, X-rays. Findings included scattered intraparenchymal contusions, post-traumatic/post-concussion syndrome, permanent eye detachment, and chronic brain dysfunction.
- On 25 October 1995, petitioner’s counsel sent respondents PHI and DTPCI a demand letter for not less than ₱100,000,000.00 for loss of earnings; no settlement was reached. She also sought treatment in the USA.
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed a Complaint for Damages on 28 August 1996 against Philippine Hoteliers, Inc. (PHI), Dusit Thani Public Co., Ltd. (DTPCI), and their insurer First Lepanto Taisho Insurance Corporation, alleging negligence and denial of prompt medical assistance.
- The Regional Trial Court (Branch 56, Makati City) rendered its Decision on 21 February 2006 dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.
- Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 87065); the CA issued its Decision on 9 August 2007 affirming the RTC. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied on 5 November 2007.
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, raising legal issues regarding factual findings, contractual relations, tort liability, evidentiary matters, and insurer liability.
Issues Presented
- Are the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals conclusive?
- Were respondents PHI and DTPCI responsible under an implied