Case Digest: Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes, G.R. NO. 154259, February 28, 2005
Torts and Damages
Chico-Nazario, J.:
Facts:
On October 13, 1994, Roberto Reyes, known as "Amay Bisaya," was in the lobby of Nikko Hotel Manila Garden when he was approached by his long-time friend, Dr. Violeta Filart.
Dr. Filart invited Reyes to a party in the hotel’s penthouse celebrating the birthday of the hotel manager, Mr. Masakazu Tsuruoka.
Reyes asked Dr. Filart to vouch for him, to which she agreed.
Reyes joined Dr. Filart’s group carrying a basket of fruits as a gift for the celebrant.
They took a group photo with the celebrant before Reyes sat with Dr. Filart’s party.
When Reyes lined up at the buffet, Ruby Lim, the Hotel’s Executive Secretary, publicly ordered him to leave the party, claiming he was not invited: “Huwag ka nang kumain, hindi ka imbitado, bumaba ka na lang”.
Reyes attempted to explain his invitation, but Dr. Filart ignored him, adding to his shame and humiliation.
A Makati policeman approached Reyes and asked him to leave the hotel, escorting him out like a common criminal.
Reyes filed an action for damages under the human relations provisions of the New Civil Code, claiming:
One Million Pesos for actual damages,
One Million Pesos for moral and/or exemplary damages, and
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos for attorney's fees.
Ruby Lim:
Ruby Lim acknowledged asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party but disputed the circumstances described by him.
Lim was the Executive Secretary of Hotel Nikko for 20 years and was responsible for organizing events, including the birthday party for Mr. Tsuruoka.
For the 1994 intimate party, Lim created an exclusive guest list limited to about 60 close friends of Mr. Tsuruoka and hotel employees, excluding Mr. Reyes.
Lim first saw Mr. Reyes at the bar counter while he was ordering a drink.
Concerned about the guest list, Lim asked the "captain waiter," Boy Miller, about Mr. Reyes’ presence and learned he was with Dr. Filart’s group.
Since Dr. Filart was busy, Lim inquired with Zenaida Fruto (Dr. Filart’s sister), who confirmed that Dr. Filart did not invite Mr. Reyes.
Lim asked Ms. Fruto to inform Mr. Reyes to leave, but he continued to linger.
Lim observed Mr. Reyes at the buffet and approached him when he was eating, stating: “Alam ninyo, hindi ho kayo dapat nandito. Pero total nakakuha na ho kayo ng pagkain, ubusin na lang ninyo at pagkatapos kung pwede lang po umalis na kayo.”
Instead of leaving, Mr. Reyes began yelling and threatened to dump food on Lim.
Dr. Violeta Filart:
Dr. Filart denied inviting Mr. Reyes, stating he volunteered to carry the basket of fruits intended for the celebrant as he was likewise going to take the elevator, not to the penthouse but to Altitude 49.
When they reached the penthouse, she reminded Mr. Reyes to go down as he was not properly dressed and was not invited.
Filart thought had left but later saw him at the bar talking to Colonel Batung. Then there was a commotion and she saw Mr. Reyes shouting. She ignored Mr. Reyes.
She was embarrassed and did not want the celebrant to think that she invited him.
RTC-QC: Dismissed Mr. Reyes' complaint, favoring Ruby Lim's testimony that she discreetly asked him to leave the party.
Reyes assumed the risk of being thrown out since he was uninvited
His presence was a breach of duty, thus precluding any recovery of damages against Hotel Nikko and Ruby Lim.
CA: Reversed the trial court's ruling, believing Mr. Reyes' account that Lim ordered him to leave loudly in front of other guests.
It ruled that this act caused Mr. Reyes embarrassment and violated good morals and customs, warranting compensation.
The liability stemmed from legal acts that were morally inappropriate, even if technically lawful.
Lim should have privately addressed the issue with Dr. Filart first before confronting Reyes. Lim’s actions were seen as lacking consideration for Reyes' dignity, violating Article 20 of the Civil Code, which protects human dignity.
Issue: Whether pursuant to the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, they cannot be made liable for damages as respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave (and being embarrassed and humiliated in the process) as he was a "gate-crasher."
Held:
The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria ("to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury") refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so.
As formulated by petitioners, however, this doctrine does not find application to the case at bar because even if respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave the party, petitioners, under Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code, were still under obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him to unnecessary ridicule and shame.
Thus, the threshold issue is whether or not Ruby Lim acted abusively in asking Roberto Reyes, a.k.a. "Amay Bisaya," to leave the party where he was not invited by the celebrant thereof thereby becoming liable under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Parenthetically, and if Ruby Lim were so liable, whether or not Hotel Nikko, as her employer, is solidarily liable with her.
As the trial court and the appellate court reached divergent and irreconcilable conclusions concerning the same facts and evidence of the case, this Court is left without choice but to use its latent power to review such findings of facts. Indeed, the general rule is that we are not a trier of facts as our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law. One of the exceptions to this general rule, however, obtains herein as the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court.
The lower court ruled that Ms. Lim did not abuse her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave the party as she talked to him politely and discreetly. The appellate court, on the other hand, held that Ms. Lim is liable for damages as she needlessly embarrassed Mr. Reyes by telling him not to finish his food and to leave the place within hearing distance of the other guests. Both courts, however, were in agreement that it was Dr. Filart's invitation that brought Mr. Reyes to the party.
The consequential question then is: Which version is credible?
From an in depth review of the evidence, we find more credible the lower court's findings of fact.
First, let us put things in the proper perspective.
We are dealing with a formal party in a posh, five-star hotel, for-invitation-only, thrown for the hotel's former Manager, a Japanese national. Then came a person who was clearly uninvited (by the celebrant) and who could not just disappear into the crowd as his face is known by many, being an actor.
While he was already spotted by the organizer of the party, Ms. Lim, the very person who generated the guest list, it did not yet appear that the celebrant was aware of his presence. Ms. Lim, mindful of the celebrant's instruction to keep the party intimate, would naturally want to get rid of the "gate-crasher" in the most hush-hush manner in order not to call attention to a glitch in an otherwise seamless affair and, in the process, risk the displeasure of the celebrant, her former boss.
To unnecessarily call attention to the presence of Mr. Reyes would certainly reflect badly on Ms. Lim's ability to follow the instructions of the celebrant to invite only his close friends and some of the hotel's personnel. Mr. Reyes, upon whom the burden rests to prove that indeed Ms. Lim loudly and rudely ordered him to leave, could not offer any satisfactory explanation why Ms. Lim would do that and risk ruining a formal and intimate affair. On the contrary, Mr. Reyes, on cross-examination, had unwittingly sealed his fate by admitting that when Ms. Lim talked to him, she was very close. Close enough for him to kiss:
Q: And, Mr. Reyes, you testified that Miss Lim approached you while you were at the buffet table? How close was she when she approached you?
A: Very close because we nearly kissed each other.
Q: And yet, she shouted for you to go down? She was that close and she shouted?
A: Yes. She said, "wag kang kumain, hindi ka imbitado dito, bumaba ka na lang."
Q: So, you are testifying that she did this in a loud voice?
. . .
A: Yes. If it is not loud, it will not be heard by many.
In the absence of any proof of motive on the part of Ms. Lim to humiliate Mr. Reyes and expose him to ridicule and shame, it is highly unlikely that she would shout at him from a very close distance. Ms. Lim having been in the hotel business for twenty years wherein being polite and discreet are virtues to be emulated, the testimony of Mr. Reyes that she acted to the contrary does not inspire belief and is indeed incredible. Thus, the lower court was correct in observing that –
Considering the closeness of defendant Lim to plaintiff when the request for the latter to leave the party was made such that they nearly kissed each other, the request was meant to be heard by him only and there could have been no intention on her part to cause embarrassment to him. It was plaintiff's reaction to the request that must have made the other guests aware of what transpired between them. . .
Had plaintiff simply left the party as requested, there was no need for the police to take him out.
Moreover, another problem with Mr. Reyes's version of the story is that it is unsupported. It is a basic rule in civil cases that he who alleges proves. Mr. Reyes, however, had not presented any witness to back his story up. All his witnesses – Danny Rodinas, Pepito Guerrero and Alexander Silva – proved only that it was Dr. Filart who invited him to the party.
Ms. Lim, not having abused her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave the party to which he was not invited, cannot be made liable to pay for damages under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Necessarily, neither can her employer, Hotel Nikko, be held liable as its liability springs from that of its employee.
Article 19, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, is not a panacea for all human hurts and social grievances. Article 19 states:
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Elsewhere, we explained that when “a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be responsible.”
The object of this article, therefore, is to set certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties. These standards are the following: act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.
Its antithesis, necessarily, is any act evincing bad faith or intent to injure. Its elements are the following:
There is a legal right or duty;
which is exercised in bad faith;
for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
When Article 19 is violated, an action for damages is proper under Articles 20 or 21 of the Civil Code. Article 20 pertains to damages arising from a violation of law which does not obtain herein as Ms. Lim was perfectly within her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave. Article 21, on the other hand, states:
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
Article 2165 refers to acts contra bonus mores and has the following elements:
There is an act which is legal;
but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; and
it is done with intent to injure.
A common theme runs through Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act complained of must be intentional.
As applied to herein case and as earlier discussed, Mr. Reyes has not shown that Ms. Lim was driven by animosity against him. These two people did not know each other personally before the evening of 13 October 1994, thus, Mr. Reyes had nothing to offer for an explanation for Ms. Lim's alleged abusive conduct except the statement that Ms. Lim, being "single at 44 years old," had a "very strong bias and prejudice against (Mr. Reyes) possibly influenced by her associates in her work at the hotel with foreign businessmen." The lameness of this argument need not be belabored. Suffice it to say that a complaint based on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code must necessarily fail if it has nothing to recommend it but innuendos and conjectures.
Parenthetically, the manner by which Ms. Lim asked Mr. Reyes to leave was likewise acceptable and humane under the circumstances. In this regard, we cannot put our imprimatur on the appellate court's declaration that Ms. Lim's act of personally approaching Mr. Reyes (without first verifying from Mrs. Filart if indeed she invited Mr. Reyes) gave rise to a cause of action "predicated upon mere rudeness or lack of consideration of one person, which calls not only protection of human dignity but respect of such dignity."
Without proof of any ill-motive on her part, Ms. Lim's act of by-passing Mrs. Filart cannot amount to abusive conduct especially because she did inquire from Mrs. Filart's companion who told her that Mrs. Filart did not invite Mr. Reyes. If at all, Ms. Lim is guilty only of bad judgment which, if done with good intentions, cannot amount to bad faith.
Not being liable for both actual and moral damages, neither can petitioners Lim and Hotel Nikko be made answerable for exemplary damages especially for the reason stated by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held:
Not a few of the rich people treat the poor with contempt because of the latter's lowly station in life.
This has to be limited somewhere. In a democracy, such a limit must be established. Social equality is not sought by the legal provisions under consideration, but due regard for decency and propriety (Code Commission, pp. 33-34). And by way of example or correction for public good and to avert further commission of such acts, exemplary damages should be imposed upon appellees.
The fundamental fallacy in the above-quoted findings is that it runs counter with the very facts of the case and the evidence on hand.
It is not disputed that at the time of the incident in question, Mr. Reyes was "an actor of long standing; a co-host of a radio program over DZRH; a Board Member of the Music Singer Composer (MUSICO) chaired by popular singer Imelda Papin; a showbiz Coordinator of Citizen Crime Watch; and 1992 official candidate of the KBL Party for Governor of Bohol; and an awardee of a number of humanitarian organizations of the Philippines."
During his direct examination on rebuttal, Mr. Reyes stressed that he had income and nowhere did he say otherwise. On the other hand, the records are bereft of any information as to the social and economic standing of petitioner Ruby Lim. Consequently, the conclusion reached by the appellate court cannot withstand scrutiny as it is without basis.
All told, and as far as Ms. Lim and Hotel Nikko are concerned, any damage which Mr. Reyes might have suffered through Ms. Lim's exercise of a legitimate right done within the bounds of propriety and good faith, must be his to bear alone.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition filed by Ruby Lim and Nikko Hotel Manila Garden is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26 November 2001 and its Resolution dated 09 July 2002 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, dated 26 April 1999 is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Comments
Post a Comment