PERSONS THE EXERCISE OF A LEGAL RIGHT OR DUTY IN GOOD FAITH AND WITH

NO INTENTION TO PREJUDICE OR INJURE ANOTHER WILL NOT GIVE

RISE TO AN ACTION FOR DAMAGES
Title GR No. 54259
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden v. Reyes
Date: February 28, 2005

Hotel Manila Garden (Hotel Nikko) and Ruby Lim – Roberto Reyes – Respondent
Petitioner
Nature of the case: Petition for review on certiorari on the Decision CA reversing the Decision of RTC that
dismissed Reyes’ complaint.

FACTS

Roberto Reyes, also known as Amay Bisaya alleged that while he was having coffee at the lobby of
Hotel Nikko, he was spotted by his friend, Dr. Violeta Filart. Mrs. Filart invited him to join her in a
birthday party of the hotel’s manager, Mr. Masakazu Tsuruoka, and that she will vouch for him.
However, while lining up at the buffet table, Ruby Lim (Executive Secretary for Hotel Nikko) saw
Reyes. Ms. Lim then requested a Ms. Fruto to tell Mr. Reyes to leave the party as he was not invited.
Mr. Reyes, however, lingered prompting Ms. Lim to inquire from Ms. Fruto who said that Mr. Reyes did
not want to leave. When Reyes went to a corner and started to eat, Ms. Lim approached him and said:
"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.” She then turned around trusting that Mr.
Reyes would show enough decency to leave, but to her surprise, he began screaming and making a
big scene, and even threatened to dump food on her.

Reyes filed a complaint for damages based on Article 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code. 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."

ISSUE/S
Does Ms. Lim’s treatment to Reyes give rise for an action for damages against the latter and the hotel
based on Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code?

RATIO
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.

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. 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: (1) There is a legal right
or duty; (2) 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 refers to acts contra bonus 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. A common theme runs
through Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act complained of must be intentional. 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 alon

RULING
The petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, in accordance to Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil
Code of the Philippines.
Notes

CPU 1-B 2020-21 (PAGAYON)