Hotel Nikko v. Reyes

 Hotel Nikko v. Reyes, 

G.R. No. 154259, 

February 28, 2005

DOCTRINE:

Article 21 refers to acts contra bonos mores and has the following elements: (1) There is

an act which is legal; (2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or

public policy; and (3) it is done with intent to injure.

FACTS:

Roberto Reyes, also known as “Amay Bisaya” incidentally met Dra. Violeta

Filart, his friend of several years, at the lobby of Hotel Nikko. Dra. Filart invited him to join

her at the penthouse party of the hotel for the birthday of the hotel’s manager, Mr.

Masakazu Tsuruoka and would vouch for him if asked. He then carried Dra. Filart’s gift,

which was a fruit basket and stayed for the party. While lining up for the buffet table,

Reyes was stopped by Ruby Lim, the Executive Secretary of Hotel Nikko, and was told

in a loud voice to leave the party as he was not invited. Filart was within hearing distance

from the conversation but completely ignored him when Reyes said that he was invited

by the former. The Makati policeman then came to escort him out.

In Filart’s version, she said that she never invited Reyes to the party and it was him who

volunteered to carry the fruit basket as he was likewise going to take the elevator and go

to a different floor. She then reminded Reyes to go down as he was not properly dressed

and was not invited. Moreover, Lim’s version shows that she approached the captain

waiter, Dr. Filart’s sister, and Capt. Batung, requesting them to tell Reyes to leave

because he was still lounging around. She then approached Reyes when he was busy

eating and quietly requested him to leave but the latter began making a big scene.

Reyes filed an action for damages under Articles 19 and 21. The RTC dismissed the

complaint stating that Lim was discreet in asking Reyes to leave the party. However, the

CA reversed the decision. Hence, this petition for review.

ISSUES:

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.

HELD:

No, Ruby Lim cannot be made liable to pay for damages under Articles 19 and 21

of the Civil Code, nor can her employer, Hotel Nikko, be held solidarily liable. The

elements of Article 19 are: (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad

faith; (3) 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 21 refers

to acts contra bonos mores and has the following elements: (1) There is an act which is

legal; (2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; and

(3) it is done with intent to injure.

In the case at bar, Ms. Lim’s version was seen as more credible than the rest because

having been employed by the hotel for more than 20 years, knows that her job requires a

skill of politeness and grace in handling matters, thus making it unlikely for her to make a

scene in a party she was tasked to manage. Article 19 was not violated since Lim

explained in her testimony that she was physically close to Reyes - so close that they

could almost kiss, which shows her intention of only having him hear what she had to say

and excluding other guests from hearing. Moreover, Article 21 was also not violated

because it was shown by evidence on record that she did not demean Reyes when she

asked him to leave. They did not know each other personally giving her no reason to treat

him wrongfully.

On the other hand, the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria is applied in this case because

Reyes brought the injury upon himself for coming to a party uninvited which opens him to

the risk of being asked to leave, thus feeling embarrassed and humiliated.