Chapter 2: Human Relations (Articles 19-21 of the New Civil Code) Title of the Case: Nikko Hotel Manila

and Ruby Lim vs. Roberto Reyes a.k.a. Amay Bisaya Case Citation: G.R. No. 154259 Date: February 28, 2005 Petitioners: Nikko Hotel Manila and Ruby Lim Respondent: Roberto Reyes a.k.a. Amay Bisaya Ponente: Justice Chico-Nazario The Facts of the Case: This case presents three versions of the story. 1: Mr. Roberto Reyes Version The cause of action before the trial court was one for damages brought under the human relations provisions of the New Civil Code. Plaintiff thereat (respondent herein) Roberto Reyes, more popularly known by his screen name Amay Bisaya, alleged that at around 6:00 oclock in the evening of October 13, 1994, while he was having coffee at the lobby of Hotel Nikko, he was spotted by his friend of several years, Dr. Violeta Filart, who then approached him. Mrs. Filart invited him to join her in a party at the hotels penthouse in celebration of the natal day of the hotels manager, Mr. Masakazu Tsurouka. Mr. Reyes asked if she could vouch for him. She replied: Of Course. Mr. Reyes then went up with the party of Dr. Filart carrying the basket of fruits which was the latters present for the celebrant. At the penthouse, they first had their picture taken with the celebrant after which Mr. Reyes sat with the party of Dr. Filart. After a couple of hours, when the buffet dinner was ready, Mr. Reyes lined-up at the buffet table, but to his great shock, shame and embarrassment, he was stopped by herein petitioner, Ruby Lim, who claimed to speak for Hotel Nikko as Executive Secretary thereof. In a loud voice and within the presence and hearing of the other guests who were making a queue at the buffet table, Ruby Lim told him to leave the party. She said in Tagalog, Huwag ka nang kimain, hindi imbitado, bumaba ka na lang. As a response to the unkind action of the petitioner, respondent tried to explain that he was invited by his good friend of several years, Dr. Filart. Conversely, Dr. Filart, who was within the hearing distance of the unexpected occurrence, completely ignored him and thus, it further added to his shame and humiliation.

Not long after, while he was recovering from the traumatic experience caused by that humiliation, a Makati policeman approached him to step out of the hotel. He was escorted out of the party by the latter like a common criminal. Claiming damages from what happened to him Mr. Reyes asked one million pesos actual damages, one million pesos moral and/or exemplary damages, and two hundred thousand pesos attorneys fees. XXXXXXXXXXX 2: Ruby Lims Version For the part of herein petitioner, Ruby Lim, she admitted that she asked Mr. Reyes to leave the party but not as humiliating and embarrassing as painted by the respondent Mr. Reyes. She narrated that she was the Hotels Executive Secretary. One of her functions included organizing birthday party of the hotels former General Manager, Mr. Tsuruoka. 1994 was not different. For Mr. Tsuruokas party, she generated an exclusive guest list and extended invitations therefor. The guest list, she claimed, was limited to approximately sixty (60) of the General Managers closest friends and some hotel employees and that respondent was not a part thereof. At the party, she first noticed the respondent at the bar counter ordering a drink. Mindful of Mr. Tsuroukas wishes to keep the party intimate, Ms. Lim approached Mr. Boy Miller, the Captain Waiter, to query as to the presence of Mr. Reyes who was not invited. The captain waiter replied that he saw Mr. Reyes with the band of Dr. Filart. As Dr. Filart was engaged in a conversation with another guest and as Ms. Lim did not want to interrupt, she inquired instead from the sister of Dr. Filart, Ms. Zenaida Fruto, who told Ms. Lim that her sister did not invite the respondent. She then requested the latter to tell Mr. Reyes to leave the party as he was not invited. Mr. Reyes, however, lingered prompting Ms. Lim to make inquiries from Ms. Fruto who said that Mr. Reyes did not want to leave. When the petitioner turned around, she saw the respondent conversing with a Captain Batung whom she later approached. Believing that Captain Batung and Mr. Reyes knew each other, Ms. Lim requested for him the same favor from Ms. Fruto. Still, Mr. Reyes lingered. When Ms. Lim spotted Mr. Reyes on the buffet table, she decided to speak to him herself as there were no other guests in the immediate vicinity. However, as Mr. the respondent was already helping himself to the food, the petitioner decided to wait.

When the respondent went to a corner and started to eat, the petitioner 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 lang po umalis na kayo. She turned around trusting that Mr. Reyes would show enough decency to leave. But to her big surprise, he began screaming and making a big scene, and even threatened to dump the food on her. XXXXXXXXXXX 3: Dr. Violeta Filarts Version Dr. Violeta Filart, the third defendant in the complaint before the lower court, also gave her version. In connection therewith, she said that she never invited respondent to the party. According to her, it was the herein respondent who volunteered to carry the basket of fruits intended for the celebrant as he was likewise going to take the elevator, not to the penthouse but to Altitude 49. When they reached the penthouse, she reminded Mr. Reyes to go down as he was not properly dressed and was not invited to the party. All the while, she thought that Mr. Reyes already left the place. Contrary to what she thought, she later saw the respondent at the bar talking to Col. Batung. Thereafter, there was a commotion and she saw Mr. Reyes shouting. She ignored Mr. Reyes. She was embarrassed and did not want the celebrant to think that she invited him. XXXXXXXXXXX The case was dismissed by the trial court. The Court of Appeals dismissed the ruling of the trial court. The Issue of the Case: Bearing in mind the facts of the case, the issue now is whether or not the petitioner acted abusively to the effect that she violated Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the New Civil Code as alleged by the respondent. The Rulings of the Court: 1. It is a basic rule in civil cases that he who alleges proves. Mr. Reyes, however, had not presented any witness to back his story up. Mr. Reyes, upon him the burden rests to prove that indeed Ms. Lim loudly and rudely ordered him to leave, could not offer any adequate reason why Ms. Lim would do that and risk ruining a formal and intimate affair requested by the former General Manager of the Hotel. In contrast, Mr. Reyes, on cross-examination, had unwittingly sealed his fate by admitting that when Ms. Lim talked to him, she was very close to the extent of kissing him.
3

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 dubious that she would shout at him from a very close distance. It should be noted that Ms. Lim was in the hotel business for twenty years for that matter. And in her twenty years of service in that hotel, she knew how to deal with their customers. And in the course of her twenty years in service in the same wherein being polite and discreet are virtues to be emulated, the testimony of Mr. Reye that she acted to the contrary does not inspire belief and is indeed incredible. Furthermore, another problem with Mr. Reyess version is that it is unsupported. It is a basic rule in civil cases that he who alleges proves. Mr. Reyes, however, had not presented any witness to back his story up. All his witnesses proved only that it was Dr. Filart who invited him to the party. 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 employees. 2. Without any proof of any ill-motive on her part, Ms. Lims act of by-passing Mrs. Filart cannot amount to abusive conduct especially because she did inquire from Mrs. Filart did not invite Mr. Reyes. In other cases, the Supreme Court explained that when a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 [of the New Civil Code] and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be responsible. Article 19 of the New Civil Code provides: Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. The object of this article is to set certain standards which may be observed not only in the exercise of ones rights but also in the performance of ones duties1. The standards are the following: Act with justice; give everyone his due; and observe honesty and good faith. Its direct opposite, essentially, is any act evincing bad faith or intent to injure. The elements of the article are as follows: 1) There is a legal right or duty; 2) Which is exercised in bad faith; 3) For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.

Albenson Enterprises Corp. et al vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88694, January 11, 1993 4

When Article 19 is violated, an action for damages is proper under Articles 20 or 21 of the New 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, on the other hand, states:Anyone who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damge. 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 must be intentional. In this case, the respondent failed to show proof of any ill-motive on the part of Ms. Lim showing an act of by-passing Mrs. Fillart cannot amount to abusive demeanor especially because she did ask from Mrs. Filarts sister who told her that Mrs. Filart did not invite Mr. Reyes. If at all, Ms. Lim is guilty only of bad judgment which, if done with good intentions, cannot amount to bad faith. Therefore, all has been considered, and as far as Ms. Lim and Hotel Nikko are concerned, any damage which Mr. Reyes might have suffered through Ms. Lims exercise of a legitimate right done within the bounds of propriety and good faith, must be his to bear alone. Hence, the petition was granted. Decision of the Court of Appeals was set aside. And the ruling of the lower court was affirmed. No costs.