NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN and RUBY LIM vs.

ROBERTO REYES,
a.k.a. AMAY BISAYA
Facts:
On 13 October 1994, Roberto Reyes alleged that he was invited by Dr.
Violeta Filart to join her in the party o !r. !asa"a#$ %s$r$o"a, the or&er
general &anager o 'i""o (otel. %he said party was organi#ed by R$by )i&,
the *+ec$tive ,ecretary o the hotel or the past twenty -./0 years. %he g$est
list was li&ited to appro+i&ately si+ty -1/0 o !r. %s$r$o"a2s closest riends
and so&e hotel e&ployees. 3nowing that !r. Reyes was not one o those
invited, !s. )i& as"ed the or&er to leave the party. !r. Reyes clai&ed that he
was as"ed to leave the party in a scandalo$s &anner. On the other hand, !s.
)i& clai&ed that she as"ed !r. Reyes politely and discreetly.
%he lower co$rt r$led that !s. )i& did not ab$se her right to as" !r.
Reyes to leave the party as she tal"ed to hi& politely and discreetly.
%he appellate co$rt, on the other hand, held that !s. )i& is liable or
da&ages as she needlessly e&barrassed !r. Reyes by telling hi& not to 4nish
his ood and to leave the place within hearing distance o the other g$ests.
Iss!:
5hether or not R$by )i& is liable $nder 6rticle .1 o the 7ivil 7ode.
R"#n$:
'o. !s. R$by )i& is not liable $nder 6rticle .1.
6rticle .1 reers to acts contra bonus mores and has the ollowing
ele&ents8 -10 %here is an act which is legal9 -.0 b$t which is contrary to
&orals, good c$sto&, p$blic order, or p$blic policy9 and -30 it is done
with intent to inj$re.
:n the deter&ination o the &anner in which !r. Reyes was as"ed to
leave, the co$rt reviewed the 4ndings o act. !r. Reyes hi&sel ad&itted that
when !s. )i& as"ed hi& to leave she was so close to hi& to a point that they
al&ost "issed. %his s$ggested that !s. )i& did not intend hersel to be heard
by other people to the e&barrass&ent o !r. Reyes. %he act that these two
did not personally "now each other prior to the party, ails to show that the
act o !s. )i& was driven by ani&osity against !r. Reyes. %he attrib$tion o
the alleged &iscond$ct o !s. )i& to her age and wor"ing environ&ent is a
la&e arg$&ent that cannot be considered.
%he absence o any proo o &otive on the part o !s. )i& to h$&iliate !r.
Reyes and e+pose hi& to ridic$le and sha&e, &a"es it highly $nli"ely that she
wo$ld sho$t at hi& ro& a very close distance. !s. )i& having been in the
hotel b$siness or twenty years wherein being polite and discreet are virt$es
to be e&$lated, the testi&ony o !r. Reyes that she acted to the contrary
does not inspire belie and is indeed incredible.
;nder 6rticle .1 the nat$re o the act to be able to clai& da&ages &$st
be intentional.
:n this case, it was not proven that !s. R$by )i& has a &otive to
intentionally e&barrass !r. Reyes in as"ing hi& to leave the party wherein he
was not invited. %h$s, !s. )i& is not liable $nder 6rticle .1 o the 7ivil 7ode.