(11) ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICTS | MLDM

DR. HUANG v. PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS, INC. GR No. 180449 | Deceber 5, 2012 | PEREZ, J.

Hotel Swimming, Bukol

FACTS
overview of the case
Case for damages filed by Dr. Genevieve Huang, a physician and derma, against Philippine Hote -
liers, Inc. (PHI) and Dusit Thani Public Co (DTPCI) (owners of Dusit Thani hotel) and First Lep-
anto Taisho Insurance( as insurer of hotel) on the alleged negligence of PHI and DTPCI’s staff in
the untimely putting off of all the lights within the hotel’s pool area and the locking of the main
entrance door of the pool area, thus prompting Dr.Huang to grope for a way out.
FACTS ACCORDING TO HUANG
delia invited huang to swim at dusit
Delia was checked in at Dusit Hotel. She invited her friend, Dr. Huang for a
swim at the hotel’s swimming pool. They started swimming at around 5:00
pm. By 7:00 pm, the hotel’s pool attendant informed them that the swim-
ming pool area was about to be closed.
Huang started to feel extraordinary dizziness, uncomfortable feeling in her stomach
which lasted until day after the accident. She couldn’t report to work. She also experi -
enced on and off severe headaches that caused her 3 sleepless nights.
Huang consulted 2 neurologist from Makati Med:
1. Dr.Noble, who required her to undergo MRI. Huang claimed that MRI results 1 clearly
showed that hear head was bruised and that according to Dr. Noble, she has a very
serious brain injury. (Dr. Noble prescribed necessary medicine for her condition)
2. Dr. Adapon, required her to under go EEG to measure electrostatic in her brain found
that she has a serious condition-a PERMANENT one. (Dr.Adapon also prescribed
medicines)
3 months after, (June yung accident, September na), her condition did not improve in fact
she started to feel losing her memory which affected her professional practice , thus she
consulted another neuro-surgeon Dr. Sibayan who required an X-Ray test and found that
she had a serious brain injury.

On October of the same year (4 months after incident), Hunang sent a demand letter to
after 7:00 pm they showered, madilim na ‘daw’ PHI and DTPCI seeking payment of 100M for loss of earnings on her remaining life span.
The two subsequently proceeded to the shower room adjacent to the pool, Demand was unheeded.
to take a shower and dress up. When they came out of the shower room,
the ENTIRE pool area was already PITCH BLACK and there was NO By November, huang went to the US for further medical treatment:
longer ANY PERSON AROUND but the two of them. 1. consulted Dr. Steinberg: found that she has ‘post traumatic-post concussion cephala -
gias vascular and neuralgia and required her to undergo physical therapy (di nag im-
prove so, return to PH)
found a phone , but biglang may nalaglag sakin 2. consulted Dr. Sibayan (again) : just relax and continue your meds!
They carefully walked towards the main door leading to the hotel, but the 3. consult pa several neuro who just advised her to continue meds and undergo physical
door was locked. Huang began to walk around to look for a house therapy
phone. Delia followed Huang. Huang saw a phone behind the lifeguard’s 4. (1 YEAR AFTER) consulted Dr.Lopez, opthalmologist because of her poor vision who
counter. While walking towards the phone, a hard and heavy object (the found that her right eye is detached and found the case permanent and very serious.
folding wooden counter top) FELL on Huang’s head and KNOCKED HER (prescribed eye drop)
DOWN almost unconscious. consulted Dr. Pardo (1 YEAR AFTER RIN ITO), Jr.,another neuro-surgeon
Huang disclosed that at 18 she suffered a STROKE due to a mitral valve
Delia got hold of the house phone and notified the hotel telephone operator disease, and were given treatments, which resulted in thromboctope-
of the incident immediately. nia. (findings: concussion, contusion, post-trauma epilepsy, minimal brain
HOTEL STAFF ARRIVED BUT ONLY ICED MY HEAD AND GAVE ME dysfunction, cervical sprain)
CREAM
The hotel staff arrived at the entrance door, not long after, but took them at
least 20-30 minutes to get inside (hindi mabuksan yung door). When the 1 CONSULTATION REPORT:
door finally opened, 3 hotel chambermaids assisted Huang by placing ice
pack and applying some ointment on her head. MRI examination of the brain shows scattered areas of intraparenchymal contusions and involving mainly the left
middle and posterior temporal and slightly the right anterior temporal lobe.

Huang slightly recovered, and requested to be assisted to the hotel’s coffee Other small areas of contusions with suggestive pertechiae are seen in the left fronto-parietal, left parieto-occipi-
shop to get some rest. Huang demanded services of the hotel physician. tal and with deep frontal periventricular subcortical and cortical regions. There is no mass effect nor signs of lo-
calized hemorrhagic extravasation.

PHYSICIAN DID NOT HELP ME, ASKED FOR WAIVER LANG! The ventricles are not enlarged, quite symmetrical without shifts or deformities; the peripheral sulci are within nor-
When hotel physician, Dr. Dalumpines arrived, she approached Huang, how- mal limits.
ever instead of providing medical assistance, Dr. Dalumpines presented a The C-P angles, petromastoids, sella, extrasellar and retro orbital areas appear normal.
Waiver and demanded that Haung sign it, otherwise hotel management
The brainstem is unremarkable.
will not render her any assistance. Dr. Huang did not sign. Huang ate and
then went home. IMPRESSION:      Scattered small intraparenchymal contusions mainly involving the left middle-posterior tempo-
ral lobe and also right medial anterior temporal, both deep frontal subcortical, left parieto-occipital subcortical and
cortical regions.
START OF HUANG'S MEDICAL JOURNEY (ACCORDING TO HER TESTI-
MONY) Ischemic etiology not ruled out.
(Important is #s 5 and 6) No localized intra - or extracerebral hemorrhage
CHAN GOMASAN OF SITO BERDE
(11) ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICTS | MLDM

DR. HUANG v. PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS, INC. GR No. 180449 | Deceber 5, 2012 | PEREZ, J.

(4 YEARS AFTER INCIDENT, 1999) consulted Dr.Perez, neurologist, be- ONE PHONE CALL CONVO: HINGI CERTIFICATION SI HUANG
cause of severe fleeting paints in her head, arms and legs, Dr. found that she During one of their phone calls, Huang requested a certification regarding
is experiencing severe pains and slight spasm of neck muscle, permanent the incident which Dr.Dalumpines issued on September 7 1995 sating that
brain damage (which can happen either after head injury or after stroke), Huang was involved in an accident, declines Dr.Dalumpines’ offer of assis-
has post-traumatic syndrome tance, and said Hirudroid cream was enough, being a doctor, she knew her
condition and that she was alright. Huang did not object to the certification’s
FACTS ACCORDING TO PHI AND HOTEL contents.
(Remember this because trial court, court of appeals and SC all found these
facts true) TRIAL COURT FINDINGS AND DECISION
PHI and the hotel management denied all material allegations and stated kasalanan ni Huang
that:
1. there is sufficient notice on the door leading to the pool area of the pool Trial Court dismissed Huang’s complaint finding that huang’s testimony
operation hours 7-7pm was self-serving. She failed to present any evidence to substantiate her alle-
lights are kept on until 10 am for security reasons, housekeeping to do gations that the lights were shut off. She did not even present her friend,
cleaning of the pool surroundings, for people doing their exercise routine at Delia. In fact, one of her witnesses, corroborated the facts as told by PHI and
the Gym adjacent to the pool area (which Gym was open until 10pm) to have hotel (na-on yung lights until 10 pm, and that the gym lights radiate to the
a good view of the pool hotel pool area) As such Huang would not have met the accident HAD
even granting that the pool area lights were off, it will not render the area SHE ONLY ACTED WITH CARE AND CAUTION.
completely dark since the gym near the pool was well-illuminated
Trial court also struck down Huang’s contention that the management did
WE HELPED HUANG BUT Huang said she is a doctor, she is fine not extend medical assistance to her. And that records show that hotel will-
when the hotel received a call at around 7:40 (night of incident) , Ms. Pearlie ing to extend further emergency assistance but Huang refused. It is Huang’s
the hotel staff nurse, brought her medical kit and hurriedly went to the area, own negligence which is the immediate and proximate cause of her in-
there was no indication of any blood or bruise on her head. When she asked jury, she cannot recover damages.
Huang if she needed any medical attention, Huang replied that she is a
doctor, she was fine and did not need any medical attention. Instead, injury was not because of the incident
requested for a hirudroid cream, which Ms. Pearlie gave. Trial court observed that the head injury complained of was not a result of
the incident since; first, Huang had a past medical history which might have
nurse reported incident to her head (doctor) been the cause of her recurring brain injury. Second, Dr. Perez’s findings did
Ms.Pearlie went back to the hotel clinic and informed Dr.Dalumpines, who not prove causal relation between brain damage and incident. Absent any
told her that she already chanced upon Huang at the coffee shop and when proof establishing causal relation between injury and incident, Huang claim
she asked how she was, Huang responded she is a doctor, she was fine, must fail.
she was already attended to by the hotel nurse.
CA affirmed decision of the trial court.
dr. dalumpines: binalikan ko pa siya, but okay daw siya CA stated that the case is based on a quasi-delict (since there exists no con-
In fact , Dr. Dalumpines went back to check on Huang, but still she insisted tractual relationship between Huang and the hotel before the incident).
she was fine and that the cream was enough. Having been assured that ev-
erything was fine, Dr. Dalumpines requested Huang to execute a handwrit- CA: ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICT
ten certification regarding the incident that occurred that night.  Dr. Tu sustain a claim liability under quasi-delict, the following requisites must
Dalumpines then suggested to Huang to have an X-ray test.  Huang replied concur:
that it was not necessary.  Huang also refused further medical attention. (a)damages suffered by the plaintiff;
(b)fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts
dr.dalumpines and huang always had chismisan/kwento phone calls he must respond; and
2 days after the incident, Huang called Dr. Dalumpines but it was nothing (c)the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the
about the incident. They only talked about personal matters (differences defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.
with siblings and family, difficulty in med practice, inheritance, etc) Huang
even told Dr.Dalumpines she once fell from a horse, that she had a stroke, CA: circumstances showing negligence of huang (ginamit rin ng sc ito)
that she is incapable of having children since her uterus had been removed, CA does not think that PHI, DTPCI and its employees were negligent
she had a blood disorder (lack of platelets) which causes bleeding and that
she had on and off headaches. Huang often called Dr. Dalumpines to discuss 1. Huang was aware that the pool area closes at 7 pm. Huang took the
similar topics. risk of overstaying when she decided to take a shower and leave the
area beyond the closing hour. When the hotel management advised her
CHAN GOMASAN OF SITO BERDE
(11) ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICTS | MLDM

DR. HUANG v. PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS, INC. GR No. 180449 | Deceber 5, 2012 | PEREZ, J.

at 7 pm that the area was to close, she thereafter took a shower. (d)Further, since petitioner’s case is for quasi-delict, the negligence or fault
should be clearly established as it is the basis of her action.The bur-
Huang admitted in her Certification that she lifted the wooden bar coun- den of proof is upon petitioner. The quantum of proof required is prepon-
tertop which then fell onto her head. This is contrary to her allegation derance of evidence
that when she passed through the counter door, she was suddenly knocked
out by a hard and heavy object. huang failed to prove alleged negligence
Other than Huang’s testimony that the lights were off, no other evidence was
Assertion that the pool are was totally dark is not true since Huang admitted presented to substantiate the same. Moreover, her allegations were success-
that she saw a telephone at the counter and was able to walk around the fully rebutted2 by PHI and Dusit.
pool area with ease. Otherwise, she could have easily stumbled over, or slid,
or bumped into something while searching for a phone. ANNEX

ISSUE Difference between quasi-delict and breach of contract

W/N PHI and DTPCI and its employees are liable for negligence? No. 1. In quasi-delict, negligence is direct, substantive and independent, while in breach
of contract, negligence is merely incidental to the performance of the contractual
obligation; there is a pre-existing contract or obligation.
HELD 2. In quasi-delict, the defense of “good father of a family” is a complete and proper
preliminary finding of the sc : CLAIM/ARGUMENT RAISED FIRST TIME defense insofar as parents, guardians and employers are concerned, while in
ON APPEAL breach of contract, such is not a complete and proper defense in the selection and
Initially, Huang was suing PHI and DTPCI mainly on account of their negligence but supervision of employees.
not on any breach of contract.  3. In quasi-delict, there is no presumption of negligence and it is incumbent upon the
injured party to prove the negligence of the defendant, otherwise, the former’s
When the case was elevated on appeal to the Court of Appeals, Huang had a change d complaint will be dismissed, while in breach of contract, negligence is presumed
and claimed that an implied contract existed between her and respondents PHI so long as it can be proved that there was breach of the contract and the burden is
and DTPCI and that the latter were liable for breach of their obligation to keep on the defendant to prove that there was no negligence in the carrying out of the
her safe and out of harm.  This allegation was never an issue before the trial court.  terms of the contract; the rule of respondeat superior is followed.
It was not the cause of action relied upon by the Huang not until the case was before
the Court of Appeals.  argument that res ipsa loquitor and respondeat superior should be applied
Court holds otherwise.
Presently, Huang claims that her cause of action can be based both on quasi-delict
and breach of contract. For Res Ipsa
Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase which literally means “the thing or the transaction
Huang’s cause of action is based solely on quasi delict speaks for itself.”  It relates to the fact of an injury that sets out an inference to the
Huang’s complaint for damages shows that it is predicated on the alleged cause thereof or establishes the plaintiff’s prima facie case.  The doctrine rests on in-
negligence of PHI and Dusit’s staff in the untimely putting off of all the lights ference and not on presumption. Simply stated, this doctrine finds no application if
within the pool area, as well as the locking of its main door which resulted to there is direct proof of absence or presence of negligence. If there is sufficient proof
the fall of a wooden counter top on her head causing her serious brain injury showing the conditions and circumstances under which the injury occurred, then the
creative reason for the said doctrine disappears.
when she was looking for a way out. Negligence was compounded by the
staff’s failure to render prompt and adequate med assistance. when to apply res ipsa
(a)the accident was of such character as to warrant an inference that it would not
too late to raise argument first time on appeal have happened except for the defendant’s negligence;
It is not too late to raise the argument of breach of contract. Well-settled is (b)the accident must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality within the
the rule that a party is not allowed to change the theory of the case or the exclusive management or control of the person charged with the negligence com-
cause of action on appeal.  Matters, theories or arguments not submitted be- plained of; and
fore the trial court cannot be considered for the first time on appeal or cer- (c)the accident must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on
tiorari. the part of the person injured

incumbent upon huang to prove elements of quasi-delict 2 testimony of Engineer Dante L. Costas, who positively declared that it has been a normal practice of the Hotel
Before respondents PHI and DTPCI can be held liable, to wit: management not to put off the lights until 10:00P.M. in order to allow the housekeepers to do the cleaning of the
pool’s surrounding, the toilets and the counters.  It was also confirmed that the lights were kept on for security
(a)damages suffered by the plaintiff; reasons and so that the people exercising in the nearby gym may be able to have a good view of the swimming
(b)fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts pool.  This Court also takes note that the nearby gymnasium was normally open until 10:00 P.M. so that there
was a remote possibility the pool area was in complete darkness as was alleged,, considering that the illumina-
he must respond; and tion which reflected from the gym.  Considering that the area were sufficient illuminated when the alleged incident
(c)the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the occurred, there could have been no reason for the [petitioner] to have met said accident, much less to have been
defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff. injured as a consequence thereof, if she only acted with care and caution, which every ordinary person is ex-
pected to do.
CHAN GOMASAN OF SITO BERDE
(11) ELEMENTS OF QUASI-DELICTS | MLDM

DR. HUANG v. PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS, INC. GR No. 180449 | Deceber 5, 2012 | PEREZ, J.

application to the case

In the case at bench, even granting that respondents PHI and DTPCI’s staff negli-
gently turned off the lights and locked the door, the folding wooden counter top
would still not fall on petitioner’s head had she not lifted the same.  Although the
folding wooden counter top is within the exclusive management or control of re-
spondents PHI and DTPCI, the falling of the same and hitting the head of petitioner
was not due to the negligence of the former.

for respondeat superior

The doctrine of respondeat superior finds no application in the absence of any show -
ing that the employees of respondents PHI and DTPCI were negligent.  Since in this
case, the trial court and the appellate court found no negligence on the part of the
employees of respondents PHI and DTPCI, thus, the latter cannot also be held liable
for negligence and be made to pay the millions of pesos damages prayed for by peti-
tioner.

CHAN GOMASAN OF SITO BERDE