Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Spouses Luigi M. Guanio and Anna Hernandez-Guanio, vs. Makati Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc., G.R. No. 190601 February 7, 2011

    Uploaded by

    Ryan Enriquez
    11 views2 pages

    Original Title

    Spouses Luigi m. Guanio and Anna Hernandez-guanio, Vs. Makati Shangri-la Hotel and Resort, Inc., g.r. No. 190601 February 7, 2011

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    11 views2 pages

    Spouses Luigi M. Guanio and Anna Hernandez-Guanio, vs. Makati Shangri-La Hotel and Resort, Inc., G.R. No. 190601 February 7, 2011

    Uploaded by

    Ryan Enriquez

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2
    pivision [GR No. 19060, Feb 07,2018) ‘SPS, LUIGI M. GUANIO AND ANNA HERNANDEZ-GUANIO MAKATI SHANGRELA HOTEL DECISION 58 Pi 608 ‘CARPIO MORALES, J. For ther weeding reception on July 28, 2001, spouses Logi M. Guano and ‘Anna tlecranden Gann (petioner) oked at the Shang Hotel Maen heat Plot to the event, Maka Shangisla Hote! & Resor, Ine. (espondent Scheduled an nal ood tasting Petionors im that they requested the ote to prepare for seven persons °C the two of them, tal Tepe parents, eo tie wedding cron A he seed fod tag wees speek ‘prepare for ony se attooer intly chase «set menu which inchudd black cod, King prawns snd angel bai pass wii wild mushtoom sauce or the mn couse me ost ‘Pooe oo per person. They were, bowerer, ven an option in which slo, ‘instead of king prawns told be nthe men P9500 pee peso Tey 0 {et partook of te sno. ‘Three day before the cnet ial od ating tok lace Petaner aver that {he salen served Was half the eof what ts) were served daring he ail ‘od sting: and when queried bout ft the ote! quoted» much higher pre (@,200:0) fr the size hat was nay served to them The parties eventually spre om inal pie 1 P50 per person, A day before the even or July 27, 200% the profile and forge their comrace |!) Pautloners dain thar duving the reception, respondents representatives, (Catering Dietor Het Marquet and Sales anager Fess Aare didn how ‘up despite thelr assurance ha they wou ther guests complained o the dey in the serve ofthe diane certain om listed in the published mena ware ‘nsmslble; the hots waiters were rade ae apologetic when confronted Shout he delay and despite Avanos pm tbat here eos be mo share ot With cots gains the defendant. SOORDERED*) 1 Sng for pstionry, the tril court lied hes onthe eter of Svenson| ‘thick party quoted below ‘Upem rtiving your srments om gr seve render deg oe ‘etapton ere stl uy we ae in fac very atesed. Right fom, tino luce pappadu trved in the soup lasted of the reutons, Taco at parks, hard vols Being to hard tl aj ne slow Servic, rude and arogaat walters, we have dsappatted you i all Inde me fol a only you do th he er a ‘Sedsrund tat sono te provide cleat eon and Instance, have ale son of ur ences We ask you plese to acept our profound apologies for eausig Foch discomfort and snnoyance, 4 (anderscorng supplied) ‘The il court observed tht from “the tor ofthe eter. the defendant therein respondent) adie tat the seaees the paitbrein pttioners revved were anaecentable and deftly not up tothe andar) (On appeal the Court of Appeals, by Dedson of Jay 27, 2009] reversed he {al carts deco, boing that the proximate cae of petitions jay ‘rata unexpected nreaen tel puss x x Hence, the dleged damage or injury brought about by the fonsioa, inconvenience and disarray diving the wedding roeion ‘nay not be tributed to defendant pelt Shang, ‘We ind tht the sid ponimate cause, which is enieyttutablta ‘Gen the {rcamsianeos tat obaed nl The Sps. Caio may bear whatever oneequential dares that they snay have allegedly sutered 7 (nderscoing supple) ‘he extension ofthe rseplion beyond 12:00 midnight, they were billed ad paid Psjo00 per hous for te three-hour extension of the tent upto 4:00 AM. the ests etkiner farther di that they brought wine and liquor in aeordance with ‘het open bar arrangement bt these wee "seve the ess who wee forced op forthe ks, Poliioners thus sent lter-complaiat tothe Makati Shangele Hotel snd Resor, Ihe (epondent) and rceoed ab apologetic eaty frm Kester ‘Svensson, the hots Exectve Asstt Manager in charge of food and Beverage. ‘They nevertnes ‘fled e complaint Aamagas before th Regional Trl Ctr OTC) of Maat Cy fn te Answer, rapondent claimed that ptioners equeted combination of ‘log prawas and lmoa, hence, the price was ineresed to 200,00 pe person, but discounted at P1%0.00" that coatay to pelioat la, Sangur and Alvees were present uring the event, abet they were ot ernentysationed thereat ae thre wore thre oer hotel foneons tht Ine there was a ely in the Sec ofthe Teas the same was eased By the meddenIncrae of gots t 470 tom the uaraneed expected mini umber of goes of goto mma 0280, a stated ne Banquet Brent (Order (BHO)|2) and that Isa Altace, Banquet Service Dieter, in ae, ‘tlied the delay nthe servi of the meal petioner Lagi fbr, i ‘Respecting the Belated servic of mls to sme gusts, respondent attrbuted it to the insstene of pettiness wedding coordinator that certs guests be sere fet (On Sensors leer, respondent, denying ae an admin of Ubi ‘Sho that was cant to mati goodil tots customer By Decision of August 17, 2006, Branch 148 of the Mkatl RIC rendered Jigen in avr of petoner, posing es ows: WHEREFORE, premis considered, dgment shee renee ia favor of the plan sed agunat the deendser rderag the

    You might also like