NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN AND RUBY LIM, PETITIONERS, VS. ROBERTO REYES, A.K.A. “AMAY BISAYA,” RESPONDENT.

Nikko Hotel Manila Garden versus Reyes

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Nikko Hotel Manila Garden and its Executive Secretary, Ruby Lim, against Roberto Reyes, popularly known by his screen name Amay Bisaya. The action began in the trial court as a complaint for damages under the human relations provisions of the New Civil Code, arising from an incident at a birthday party in the hotel penthouse where Ruby Lim asked Reyes, an uninvited guest, to leave. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clearest teaching on the limits of Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code: not every human hurt or social grievance is a legal wrong, and the doctrine of abuse of rights requires bad faith or an intent to injure, not mere rudeness or lack of consideration.

Procedural History

Reyes filed a complaint for damages in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, against Nikko Hotel Manila Garden, Ruby Lim, and Dr. Violeta Filart. After trial on the merits, the trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave a party to which he was not invited by the host, and that no recovery could be had because he himself was at fault. The trial court gave more credence to Lim's testimony that she was discreet in asking Reyes to leave.

Reyes appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. It found Reyes's testimony more believable, held that Lim's act of telling him, within hearing distance of other guests, that he should not finish his food and should leave was contrary to morals and good customs under Article 21 of the Civil Code, and imposed upon Nikko Hotel, Ruby Lim, and Dr. Violeta Filart a solidary obligation to pay exemplary damages of 200,000 pesos, moral damages of 200,000 pesos, and attorney's fees of 10,000 pesos. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration, prompting Nikko Hotel and Ruby Lim to file the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

At around six o'clock in the evening of 13 October 1994, Roberto Reyes, known as Amay Bisaya, was having coffee at the lobby of Hotel Nikko when his friend of several years, Dr. Violeta Filart, approached him. She invited him to join her at a party in the hotel penthouse celebrating the birthday of the hotel's manager, Mr. Masakazu Tsuruoka. Reyes asked if she could vouch for him, and she replied, of course. He then went up with her party, carrying her basket of fruits for the celebrant. At the penthouse, they had their picture taken with the celebrant, and Reyes sat with Dr. Filart's group.

After a couple of hours, when the buffet dinner was ready, Reyes lined up at the buffet table. Ruby Lim, the hotel's Executive Secretary, who had organized the party and generated an exclusive guest list of about sixty of the celebrant's closest friends and some hotel employees, approached him. According to Reyes, Lim told him in a loud voice, within the presence and hearing of other guests, not to eat and to go down because he was not invited. He tried to explain that Dr. Filart had invited him, but Dr. Filart ignored him. A Makati policeman then approached him and escorted him out of the party. Reyes asked for One Million Pesos actual damages, One Million Pesos moral and exemplary damages, and Two Hundred Thousand Pesos attorney's fees.

Ruby Lim admitted asking Reyes to leave but denied the ignominious circumstances. She testified that Reyes was not on the guest list; that she first noticed him at the bar; that she inquired from the captain waiter, from Dr. Filart's sister Zenaida Fruto, and from Captain Batung, asking them to tell Reyes to leave; and that when she finally spoke to him herself, she said that he should not be there, but since he had already gotten food, he should finish it and then leave. She said Reyes then began screaming and threatened to dump food on her. Dr. Filart testified that she never invited Reyes, that he volunteered to carry the fruit basket, and that she reminded him to go down as he was not properly dressed and not invited.

Issues

• Whether or not Ruby Lim acted abusively in asking Roberto Reyes, also known as Amay Bisaya, to leave the party where he was not invited by the celebrant, thereby becoming liable under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code.
• Whether or not Hotel Nikko, as Lim's employer, is solidarily liable with her for damages.
• Whether or not the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria applies to bar recovery by Reyes.

Applicable Provisions

Article 19 of the New Civil Code provides:

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.

This is the principle of abuse of rights, which sets the standards for the exercise of rights and the performance of duties; its violation makes the wrongdoer responsible for damage caused.

Article 21 of the New Civil Code provides:

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.

This provision refers to acts contrary to good morals and requires that the act be done with intent to injure.

Article 20 of the New Civil Code provides:

Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

This provision pertains to damages arising from a violation of law, which the Court found does not obtain here because Lim was perfectly within her right to ask Reyes to leave.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Ruby Lim did not act abusively and cannot be made liable under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Because the trial court and the Court of Appeals reached divergent conclusions on the same facts, the Court reviewed the findings of fact. It found the trial court's findings more credible. Reyes, who bore the burden of proving that Lim loudly and rudely ordered him to leave, admitted on cross-examination that when Lim talked to him, she was very close, close enough for them to nearly kiss. The Court reasoned that in the absence of any proof of motive on Lim's part to humiliate Reyes, it was highly unlikely that she would shout at him from a very close distance. Lim had been in the hotel business for twenty years, where being polite and discreet are virtues. Reyes presented no witness to support his story; his witnesses proved only that Dr. Filart invited him. The Court explained that Article 19 is not a panacea for all human hurts and social grievances, and that its elements are a legal right or duty, exercised in bad faith, for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. Article 21 requires that the act be legal but contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy, and done with intent to injure. A common theme runs through Articles 19 and 21: the act complained of must be intentional. Reyes showed no animosity on Lim's part; the two did not know each other personally before that evening. The Court also held that Lim's manner of asking Reyes to leave was acceptable and humane, and that her act of by-passing Dr. Filart, without proof of ill motive, cannot amount to abusive conduct, especially since she had inquired from Dr. Filart's companion. At most, Lim was guilty only of bad judgment which, if done with good intentions, cannot amount to bad faith.

On the second issue, the Court held that since Lim is not liable, neither can her employer, Hotel Nikko, be held liable, as its liability springs from that of its employee.

On the third issue, the Court held that the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, which means that to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury, does not find application as formulated by the petitioners, because even if Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave, petitioners were still under obligation to treat him fairly under Articles 19 and 21. Nonetheless, since Lim did not abuse her right, no liability arose.

The Court also rejected the award of exemplary damages, finding the Court of Appeals' reasoning that rich people treat the poor with contempt to be without basis, since Reyes was an actor of long standing, a radio co-host, a board member of a music organization, a showbiz coordinator, a former candidate for governor, and an awardee of humanitarian organizations, while the records were bereft of information on Lim's social and economic standing.

Doctrine

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. The elements of an action under Article 19 are: first, there is a legal right or duty; second, which is exercised in bad faith; and third, for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another. The elements of an action under Article 21 are: first, there is an act which is legal; second, but which is contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy; and third, it is done with intent to injure. A common theme runs through Articles 19 and 21: the act complained of must be intentional. Article 19 is not a panacea for all human hurts and social grievances. Bad judgment, if done with good intentions, cannot amount to bad faith. When an employee is not liable, the employer cannot be held solidarily liable, as the employer's liability springs from that of the employee.

Disposition

The petition filed by Ruby Lim and Nikko Hotel Manila Garden was granted; the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26 November 2001 and its Resolution dated 09 July 2002 were reversed and set aside, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, dated 26 April 1999 was affirmed. No costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: Article 19 is not a panacea for all human hurts and social grievances, and the act complained of under Articles 19 and 21 must be intentional, attended by bad faith or an intent to injure. Examiners like to use this case to test the elements of abuse of rights and the distinction between mere rudeness or lack of consideration and actionable conduct under the human relations provisions of the Civil Code.