Topic: /Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the Decision of the affirming the

Decision of RTC of Makati City in Civil Case, dismissing for lack of merit Dr. Genevieve L.
Huangs Complaint for Damages. Assailed as well is the Court of Appeals Resolutiondenying for
lack of merit petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
rll

05. DR. HUANG v. PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS, INC.

G.R. No. 180440; December 5, 2012 Second Division
FACTS: A Complaint for Damages was filed by Dr. Huang against Dusit Hotel
alleging negligence of t Hotels staff, in the untimely putting out all the lights within
the hotels swimming pool area as well as the locking of the main entrance door of
the area, prompting petitioner to grope for a way out. While doing so, a folding
wooden counter top, which she lifted as she reached for a hotel phone, fell on her
head causing her serious brain injury. The trial court ruled that Huangs own
negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of her injury, she cannot recover
damages. Huang elevated the matter to the CA which affirmed the decision of trial
court. Huang on Appeal contended that an implied contract existed between them in
view of the fact that the hotel guest status extends to all those who avail of its service
sits patrons and invitees. It follows then that all those who patronize the hotel and its
facilities, including those who are invited to partake of those facilities, like her, are
generally regarded as guests of the hotel. As such, Dusit Hotel is responsible by
implied contract for the safety and welfare of Huang while the latter was inside their
premises by exercising due care, which they failed to do. She argues that a person
who goes in a hotel without a "bukol" or hematoma and comes out of it with a
"bukol" or hematoma is a clear case of res ipsa loquitur.
ISSUE:
1.
Whether or not the complaint is one for violation of an Implied Contract so that
res ipsa loquitur is applicable in this case?
2.
Whether or not respondents are liable for the injury sustained by the petitioner
based on the theory of quasi-delict?
Ruling:
1.
No. The allegations in Huangs Complaint constitute a cause of action for
quasi-delict, which under the New Civil Code is defined as an act, or omission which
causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence.
2.
Huang utterly failed to prove the alleged negligence of Dusit Hotel. Her
own Complaint affirmed that Dusit Hotel afforded medical assistance to her after she
met the unfortunate accident inside the hotels swimming pool facility. It was
established that petitioner stayed in the hotels swimming pool facility beyond its
closing hours; she lifted the folding counter top that eventually hit her head; and Dusi
Hotelt extended medical assistance to her. As such, no negligence can be attributed to
the respondents or to their staff.
Penned by: Assoc. Justice JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ/Assoc. Justice BRION A.,
Assoc. Justice VELASCO P., Assoc. Justice VILLARAMA M., and Assoc. Justice
PERLAS-BERNABE E. concurred.