11.

NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN AND RUBY LIM VS. ROBERTO REYES
a.k.a. “AMAY BISAYA”
2005 Feb 28

G.R. No. 154259

FACTS:
In the evening of October 13, 1994, while drinking coffee at the lobby of
Hotel Nikko, respondent was invited by a friend, Dr. Filart to join her in a party
in celebration of the birthday of the hotel’s manager. During the party and
when respondent was lined-up at the buffet table, he was stopped by Ruby
Lim, the Executive Secretary of the hotel, and asked to leave the party.
Shocked and embarrassed, he tried to explain that he was invited by Dr. Filart,
who was herself a guest. Not long after, a Makati policeman approached him
and escorted him out of her party.

Ms. Lim admitted having asked respondent to leave the party but not under the
ignominious circumstances painted by Mr. Reyes, that she did the act politely
and discreetly. Mindful of the wish of the celebrant to keep the party intimate
and exclusive, she spoke to the respondent herself when she saw him by the
buffet table with no other guests in the immediate vicinity. She asked him to
leave the party after he finished eating. After she had turned to leave, the latter
screamed and made a big scene.

Dr. Filart testified that she did not want the celebrant to think that she invited
Mr. Reyes to the party.

Respondent filed an action for actual, moral and/or exemplary damages and
attorney’s fees. The lower court dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court
of Appeals reversed the ruling of the trial court, consequently imposing upon
Hotel Nikko moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. On motion for
reconsideration, the Court of Appeals affirmed its decision. Thus, this instant
petition for review.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ms. Ruby Lim is liable under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil
Code in asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party as he was not invited by the
celebrant thereof and whether or not Hotel Nikko, as the employer of Ms. Lim,
be solidarily liable with her.

RULING:
The Court found more credible the lower court’s findings of facts. There was no
proof of motive on the part of Ms. Lim to humiliate Mr. Reyes and to expose
him to ridicule and shame. Mr. Reyes’ version of the story was unsupported,
failing to present any witness to back his story. 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 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.

When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms
enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is
thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be responsible. Article 21
states that any person 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 damage.

Without proof of any ill-motive on her part, Ms. Lim’s act cannot amount to
abusive conduct.

The maxim “Volenti Non Fit Injuria” (self-inflicted injury) was upheld by the
Court, that is, to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury, that
consent to injury precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly
and voluntarily exposed himself to danger.

12.

Spouses Hing vs. Choachuy, et. Al.

G.R. No. 179736

June 26, 2013

FACTS:

Sometime in April 2005, Aldo Development & Resources, Inc. (owned by

Choachuy’s) filed a case for Injunction and Damages with Writ of Preliminary
Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order against the Hing’s. The latter
claimed that the Hing’s constructed a fence without a valid permit and that it
would destroy the walls of their building. The court denied the application for
lack of evidence. So in order to get evidences for the case, on June 2005,
Choachuy illegally set-up two video surveillance cameras facing the Hing’s
property. Their employees even took pictures of the said construction of the
fence. The Hing’s then filed a case against the Choachuy’s for violating their
right to privacy. On October 2005, the RTC issued a order granting the
application of the Hing’s for TRO and directed the Choachuy’s to remove the
two video surveillance cameras they installed. The Choachuy’s appealed the
case to the Court of Appeals and the RTC’s decision was annulled and set
aside. The Hing’s then raised the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the installation of two video surveillance cameras of

Choachuy’s violated the Hing’s right to privacy.

RULING:

Such act of the Choachuy’s violated the right of privacy of the Hing’s
under Article 26(1) prohibiting the “prying into the privacy of another’s
residence.” Although it is a business office and not a residence, the owner has
the right to exclude the public or deny them access.

13.

De Zuzuarregui vs. Hon. Villarosa, et.al.

G.R.No. 183788

April 5, 2010

FACTS:

Rosemary Torres Ty-Rasekhi and petitioner Krizia Ty-de Zuzuarregui

filed a compromise agreement filed in court in which it states that they are the
only heirs of Bella Torres, the mother of Rosemary. Subsequently, Peter Ty,
Catherine Ty, and Fannie Ty all claimed to be biological children of Bella. They
filed a charge against petitioner and Rosemary of falsification and forgery for
having to alleged that they were the only heirs of Bella and for the annulment
of the compromise agreement.

The Regional Trial Court found them guilty of falsification of public document
in which the CA affirmed the same. Petitioner argues that there is a prejudicial
question in the filing of the criminal case.

ISSUE:

Whether there is a prejudical question involved.

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative and the criminal case was
suspended.

It was clear that in the petition to annul the compromise agreement in

which their names were not included, having to adjudge the civil case would
know if they are really heirs of Bella. If not, then the criminal case against
petitioners has no basis to precede its course.