Case Digest - Nikko Hotel Manila Garden, et. al. vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 154259, Feb.
28, 2005
(Doctrine of Volenti non Fit Injuria)
FACTS:
The cause of action before the trial court was one for damages brought under the human relations
provisions of the New Civil Code.
Roberto Reyes “Amay Bisaya” Version
Respondent Reyes alleged that a Dr. Violeta Filart approached him and invited him to join a
party.
Mr. Reyes entered the party carrying the basket of fruit that was Dr. Filart’s present to the
party celebrant. While lining up at the buffet table he was stopped by Petitioner Ruby Lim
who claimed to speak for the Hotel as executive Secretary.
Mr. Reyes alleged that Lim loudly, and within hearing voice of the nearby guest, to tell him
to leave the party. Mr. Reyes tried to explain that he was invited by Dr. Filart but he found
that Dr. Filart was completely ignoring him. He was later approached by a policeman and
asked him to step out of the hotel and, like a common criminal, was escorted out of the party
by the policeman. All of this was very embarrassing and humiliating to him.
Mr. Reyes filed for damages against the Hotel.
Ruby Lim Version
Ruby Lim admitted to having asked Mr. Reyes to leave the party but not under the
circumstances that Mr. Reyes portray it.
Ms. Lim have 20 years of experience being the Hotel’s executive secretary. There was an
exclusive guest list, limited to the Celebrant’s closest friends and some hotel employees.
Mr. Reyes was not one of those invited.
Ms. Lim first notice Mr. Reyes at the bar ordering a drink. Mindful that the celebrant
want to keep the party intimate, she inquired the captain waiter as to the presence of Mr.
Reyes who was not invited.
It was reported that Mr. Reyes was with the group of Dr. Filart. As he was busy with
another guess, Ms. Lim inquire his sister who told her that Dr. Filart did not invite Mr.
Reyes.
Ms. Lim ask her to tell Mr. Reyes to leave as he was not invited but he lingered and the
sister later told Ms. Lim that Mr. Reyes did not want to leave.
It came to the point where Ms. Lim decided to speak to him herself and after Mr. Reyes
got some food on the buffet and started eating, Mr. Lim approached him and told him,
without any other guest in the immediate vicinity, to leave after eating.
Think Mr. Reyes would have enough decency to leave, he instead started sceaming,
making a big scene and even threatened to dump food on her.)
Dr. Filart, the person alleged to have invited Mr. Reyes, testified that she did not actually
invited him. He was just carrying the present she was bringing and even told him to leave
because he was not invited and was not dressed properly. When he started to make a big
scene, she ignored him because she was embarrassed and did not want the celebrant to
think she invited him.
RTC– decided in favor of Ms. Lim, giving her testimony more credence. RTC Ratio that Mr.
Reyes assumed the risk of being thrown out for the party that he was uninvited for. There can be
no recover of damages because he himself was at fault.
CA – they reverse the decision of the RTC, giving more credence to Mr. Reyes version of the
incident and ordered them to pay damages
Thus, the instant Petition for Review.
ISSUE:
WON the Hotel and Ms. Lim are liable for damages. (NO)
RULING:
Petitioners Lim and Hotel Nikko contend that 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."
Doctrine of volenti non fit injuria 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.
This doctrine does not apply in this case because even if Mr. Reyes assumed the risk, under
some articles in the New Civil Code, the Hotel and Ms. Lim are under obligation to treat him
fairly in order to not expose him to unnecessary ridicule and shame.
With the lower courts disagreeing with each other, the Supreme Court reviewed the facts and
have decided that Ms. Lim’s version of the incident is more believable.
Highlighted reason for this decision is that Mr. Reyes himself was the one who proved Ms.
Lim’s case.
When Ms. Lim was talking to him, Mr. Reyes himself admitted that she was very, very close,
close enough to kiss according to Mr. Reyes. 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. It is more likely that she wanted him to leave
in the most hush-hush manner available.
Causing a scene would reflect badly on her and on her employer, the celebrant, who wanted to
keep the party intimate.
Another highlighted reason is that Mr. Reyes testimony 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.
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.
