NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN and RUBY LIM, 

petitioners,
vs.
ROBERTO REYES, a.k.a. “AMAY BISAYA,” respondent.
G.R. No. 154259
February 28, 2005

FACTS:
Roberto Reyes (AKA Amay Bisaya), filed an action for damages under Arts. 19
and 21 against petitioners. He alleged that at around 6:00 in the evening of 13
October 1994, 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. He then carried Filart’s present (basket of fruits) to the party.
However, while lining up at the buffet table, Reyes was stopped by Ruby Lim
(Executive Secretary for Hotel Nikko) and in a loud voice, was told to leave the
party. Filart was within hearing distance but completely ignored him when he
said that he was invited by Filart. Thereafter, he was escorted out by a Makati
policeman.

Ms. Lim said that she approached the captain waiter, Dr. Filart’s sister (Ms.
Fruto), and Capt. Batung regarding his presence, and requested Fruto & Batung
to tell Reyes to leave. Because he still lingered, she then approached Reyes when
he went to a corner to eat and requested him to leave, but when she turned
around, Reyes began making a big scene. Filart, on the other hand, stated that
she never invited Mr. Reyes to the party and that it was Reyes who volunteered
to carry the basket as he was also going to take the elevator, but he was going to
a different floor.

The RTC dismissed the complaint, but the CA reversed the same. Hence, this
petition for review. Petitioners 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 for being a gate-crasher.

ISSUE:
WON Ruby Lim acted abusively in asking Roberto Reyes to leave the party.

HELD:
NO. We find more credible the lower courts findings of fact. We are dealing with
a formal party in a posh, five-star hotel, for-invitation-only, thrown for the hotel’s
former Manager. To unnecessarily call attention to the presence of Mr. Reyes
would certainly reflect badly on Ms. Lim’s ability to follow the instructions of the
celebrant to invite only his close friends and some of the hotel’s personnel. 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.

Considering the closeness of defendant Lim to plaintiff when the request for the
latter to leave the party was made such that they nearly kissed each other, the
request was meant to be heard by him only and there could have been no
intention on her part to cause embarrassment to him. Moreover, another
problem with Mr. Reyes’s version of the story is that it is unsupported.

A common theme runs through Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act
complained of must be intentional. As applied to herein case and as earlier
discussed, Mr. Reyes has not shown that Ms. Lim was driven by animosity
against him. These two people did not know each other personally before the
evening of 13 October 1994, thus, Mr. Reyes had nothing to offer for an
explanation for Ms. Lim’s alleged abusive conduct except the statement that Ms.
Lim, being single at 44 years old, had a very strong bias and prejudice against
(Mr. Reyes) possibly influenced by her associates in her work at the hotel with
foreign businessmen. The lameness of this argument need not be belabored.

Parenthetically, the manner by which Ms. Lim asked Mr. Reyes to leave was
likewise acceptable and humane under the circumstances. Not being liable for
both actual and moral damages, neither can petitioners Lim and Hotel Nikko be
made answerable for exemplary damages.