You are on page 1of 2

Hotel Nikko vs.



Roberto Reyes was having coffee at the lobby of Hotel Nikko when Dr. Filart, his friend of several
years, spotted him and asked him to join her to the party held for the hotel manager, Mr. Masakazu.
They went to the penthouse and Roberto carried the basket of fruits for the celebrant. They took
pictures with Mr. Masakazu Tsuruoka. When the time the buffet was ready, he lined-up, but then Ms.
Ruby Lim saw him and told him to leave the party with the words huwag ka nang kumain, hindi ka
imbitado, bumaba ka na lang. Humiliated, he turned to Dr. Filart, explaining that she was invited by her,
but the latter just ignored him adding more to his embarrassment. He was, then, escorted by police men
outside of the hotel, like a criminal. These prompt him to claim damages from the defendants.

The versions held by Ms. Ruby Lim and Dr. Violeta Filart were different. Ms Ruby Lim claims that
before approaching Mr. Reyes, she asked several people including Dr. Filarts sister, Ms. Fruto and
Captain Batung whether they had invited the former. She even tried to approach and ask Dr. Filart, but
she was busy talking to her friends. This was in strict compliance with the instruction directed to them
by the general manager that those names of people written in the guest list shall only be the ones
allowed inside. Apparently, Mr. Reyes was not among the guests invited. This prompted Ms. Lim to ask
Mr. Reyes to finish what he had on his plate and, thereafter, leave. It was on a close distance so as not
to be heard by others. It was not under the ignominious circumstance painted by Mr. Reyes. Dr. Filart,
on the other hand, also offered her piece saying that Mr. Reyes, who rode the elevator, going to altitude
49, insisted on bringing the basket of fruits to the penthouse. She never invited her because it was not
even her party.

The court ruled that the case is not meritorious. The respondent, attending a party, through an
invitation not directly from the celebrant, has brought to himself the consequence that it may bring


Whether or not petitioners acted abusively in asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party.


The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the petitioners. The respondent failed to establish sufficient proof
of ill-motive on the part of the petitioner, Ms. Lim. In fact, she even tried her best not to humiliate the
former from asking him to leave the party. Their distance towards each other, that they could almost
kissed, when Ms. Lim requested him to leave, proved to work against the respondent. It would be
unlikely that Ms. Lim shouted at him with such proximate distance. Ms. Lim has already served the
industry for 20 years. She is experienced enough to handle such matters. Hence, the petitioner cannot
be held liable under Article 19 and 20 of the Civil Code.