G.R. No. 154259 - Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes

Case Summary (G.R. No. 154259)

Factual Background

On 13 October 1994, Roberto Reyes was at the lobby of Hotel Nikko when he was approached by his acquaintance Dr. Violeta Filart, who invited him to join a birthday party for the hotel manager at the hotel penthouse. Reyes carried a basket of fruit as a gift and went up with Dr. Filart and her party. At the buffet a few hours later, Ruby Lim, who identified herself as the hotel’s executive secretary and the organizer of the guest list, asked Reyes to leave because he was not on the exclusive guest list. Reyes testified that Lim ordered him in a loud voice to stop eating and to leave within hearing of other guests, after which a Makati policeman escorted him out. Reyes claimed One Million Pesos actual damages, One Million Pesos moral damages, and Two Hundred Thousand Pesos attorneys’ fees.

Defendants’ Version of Events

Ruby Lim admitted asking Reyes to leave but denied that she did so loudly or with intent to humiliate him. She explained that she had prepared an exclusive guest list of approximately sixty persons and that she first inquired discreetly from wait staff and from Dr. Filart’s sister before asking Reyes to depart. Lim recounted that she spoke to Reyes closely and politely, that he lingered, then began to eat, and that she told him, in effect, that he should finish his food and then leave. Dr. Filart likewise testified that she never invited Reyes, that she had told him to go down because he was not properly dressed, and that she did not intervene when he was later removed.

Trial Court Proceedings and Ruling

The RTC tried the case on the merits and dismissed Reyes’ complaint. The RTC credited Lim’s testimony as discreet and polite and reasoned that Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave because he was not an invited guest. The court cited the doctrine that damages are consequences imposed for breach of duty and concluded that no recovery could be had against Hotel Nikko and Lim because Reyes was at fault for attending an exclusive party to which he was not invited. The RTC also dismissed counterclaims by the defendants.

Court of Appeals’ Decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. The appellate court accepted Reyes’ account that Lim loudly told him not to eat and to leave within hearing of other guests, finding that such conduct needlessly humiliated him and was contrary to morals and good customs under Art. 21 of the Civil Code. The Court of Appeals held that even lawful acts committed contra bonus mores may give rise to liability when done with intent to injure, and that Lim should have approached Dr. Filart first and handled the matter in private. The Court of Appeals imposed solidary liability on Hotel Nikko, Lim, and Dr. Filart for exemplary damages of P200,000, moral damages of P200,000, and attorneys’ fees of P10,000.

Issues Presented on Petition for Review

Petitioners challenged the Court of Appeals’ reversal on multiple grounds which included, inter alia, that the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria barred recovery because Reyes was a gate-crasher; that the appellate court erred in holding Hotel Nikko and Lim jointly and severally liable with Dr. Filart; that the appellate court departed from the RTC’s findings of fact regarding the circumstances of the alleged humiliation; that the appellate court improperly relied on alleged poverty as a factor without evidence; and that the Court of Appeals failed to act on issues concerning defects in appellants’ brief.

Doctrines and Legal Standards Considered

The Supreme Court examined the doctrines invoked. The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria refers to consent to injury and precludes recovery by one who knowingly exposed himself to danger. The Court observed that even if Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave, Arts. 19 and 21 of the Civil Code nevertheless impose duties to act with justice and to avoid causing loss or injury in a manner contrary to morals or good customs. Art. 19 requires that every person act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith; its antithesis is conduct evincing bad faith or intent to injure. Art. 21 covers lawful acts committed contra bonus mores and requires intent to injure as an essential element. Art. 20 was deemed inapplicable because Lim acted within a legal right to remove an uninvited person.

Supreme Court’s Review of Credibility and Facts

Confronted with conflicting findings by the RTC and the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court exercised its exceptional power to review facts because the appellate court’s findings were contrary to those of the trial court. The Court found the RTC’s factual findings more credible. The Supreme Court emphasized the context of an exclusive, invitation-only party in a five-star hotel and recognized that Lim, as organizer and long-time hotel executive, had motive to remove an uninvited guest discreetly to protect the celebrant’s wishes. The Court noted weaknesses in Reyes’ testimony, including his admission that Lim was physically close when speaking to him such that they nearly kissed, which undermined the plausibility that she shouted loudly to embarrass him. The Court also observed that Reyes presented no witnesses to corroborate his claim of public humiliation and that his witnesses only proved Dr. Filart’s prior engagement with him.

Application of Articles 19 and 21 to the Facts

Applying Art. 19 and Art. 21, the Supreme Court held that Lim had a legal right to ask an uninvited person to leave and that the evidence did not show that she exercised that right in bad faith or with intent to injure. The Court reiterated that violations of Articles 19 and 21 require intentional conduct. In the absence of proof of animus or deliberate intent to humiliate, Lim’s conduct amounted at most to poor judgment. The Court concluded that there was no culpable abuse of right or act contra bonus mores warranting liability under the cited provisions.

Employer Liability and Exemplary Damages

The Supreme Court addressed vicarious liability and exemplary damages. The Court applied Art. 2180 to reason that Hotel Nikko’s liability, if any, would spring from Lim’s liability; because Lim

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 154259)

Parties and Procedural Posture

NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN AND RUBY LIM filed a petition for review on certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals.
ROBERTO REYES, A.K.A. AMAY BISAYA was the plaintiff below who brought an action for damages under the human relations provisions of the New Civil Code.
The Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, dismissed the complaint and likewise dismissed the defendants' counterclaims.
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and awarded moral, exemplary damages and attorney's fees against NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN, RUBY LIM, and VIOLETA FILART jointly and severally.
The Court of Appeals denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration, prompting the present petition to the Court.

Key Factual Allegations

ROBERTO REYES alleged that on 13 October 1994 he accompanied VIOLETA FILART to a penthouse birthday party at the hotel after she invited him and vouched for him.
REYES alleged that while in the buffet line he was loudly told by RUBY LIM, claiming to speak for the hotel, to leave the party in the presence of other guests.
REYES alleged that VIOLETA FILART ignored his explanation and that a Makati policeman later escorted him out of the party.
RUBY LIM testified that she organized an exclusive guest list of approximately sixty persons and that REYES was not invited by the celebrant.
LIM testified that she discreetly asked companions of FILART, including Ms. Fruto and Captain Batung, to request REYES to leave and that she personally spoke privately to REYES, who then created a commotion.
VIOLETA FILART denied inviting REYES and testified that she told him earlier to leave because he was improperly dressed and not invited.
The witnesses presented by REYES proved only that FILART brought REYES to the party and did not corroborate REYES' account of public humiliation.

Lower Court Findings

The RTC found RUBY LIM's version more credible, concluded that she acted politely and discreetly, and dismissed REYES' complaint on the ground that he assumed the risk of being asked to leave as a gate-crasher.
The Court of Appeals found REYES' testimony more credible, concluded that LIM needlessly embarrassed REYES within hearing distance of other guests, and held the defendants liable under Art. 21, New Civil Code.
The Court of Appeals imposed exemplary damages of P200,000, moral damages of P200,000, and attorney's fees of P10,000, and held FILART jointly and severally liable.
The Court of Appeals denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration before the present petition was filed.

Issues Presented

Whether the doctrine volenti non fit injuria applied to bar recovery because REYES allegedly assumed the risk as a gate-crasher.
Whether RUBY LIM abused her right and willfully caused injury contrary to Art. 19 and Art. 21 of the Civil Code.
Whether NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN was solidarily liable with RUBY LIM under Art. 2180, Civil Code.
Whether the Court of Appeals departed from the RTC's factual findings without justification.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in basing exemplary damages on an unproven theory of contempt toward the poor and in failing to rule on defects in appellants' brief.

Contentions of the Parties

NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN and RUBY LIM contended that volenti non fit injuria precluded recovery because REYES voluntarily exposed himself to the risk of being excluded.
Petitioners contended that any emb