8/17/2019 Hotel Nikko v. Reyes, 452 S 532
1/4
SECOND DIVISION[G.R. No. 154259. February 28, 2005]
NIKKO HOTEL MNIL GR!EN a"# R$%& LIM, petitioners,
vs.RO%ERTO RE&E', a.(.a. M&%I'&, respondent .
! E ) I ' I O N)HI)O*N+RIO, J .
In this petition for review on certiorari , petitioners
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden (Hotel Nikko)!" and #$%& 'i
assail theDeision*" of the Co$rt of +ppeals dated * Nove%er
*--! reversin. the Deision /" of the #e.ional 0rial Co$rt
(#0C) of1$e2on Cit&, 3ranh !-4, as well as the
#esol$tion4" of the Co$rt of +ppeals dated -5 6$l& *--*
whih denied petitionersotion for reonsideration7
0he a$se of ation %efore the trial o$rt was one for daa.es
%ro$.ht $nder the h$an relations provisions of theNew Civil Code7
8laintiff thereat (respondent herein) #o%erto #e&es, ore
pop$larl& known %& the sreen nae +a&3isa&a, alle.ed
that at aro$nd 9-- olok in the evenin. of !/ Oto%er !554, while he
was havin. offee at the lo%%& ofHotel Nikko,:" he was
spotted %& his friend of several &ears, Dr7 Violeta ;ilart,
who then approahed hi7 " Mrs7 ;ilarinvited hi to
8/17/2019 Hotel Nikko v. Reyes, 452 S 532
2/4
Thus, no recovery can be had against defendants ikko Hotel and
!uby "im because he himself was at fault
#$arciano v. %ourt of &ppeals, '(' )%!& *+-. He knew
that it was not the party of defendant ioleta /ilart even
if she allowed him to 0oin her and took responsibility for his
attendance at the party. His action against defendants
ikko Hotel and !uby "im must therefore fail.4*"
On appeal, the Co$rt of +ppeals reversed the r$lin. of the trial
o$rt as it fo$nd ore oandin. of %elief thetestion& of Mr7
#e&es that Ms7 'i ordered hi to leave in a lo$d voie within
hearin. distane of several .$ests9
1n putting appellant in a very embarrassing situation, telling
him that he should not finish his food and to leave the
place within the hearing distance of other guests is an act
which is contrary to morals, good customs . . ., for which
appellees should compensate the appellant for the damage
suffered by the latter as a consequence therefore #&rt.'(, ew
%ivil %ode-. The liability arises from the acts which are in
themselves legal or not prohibited, but contrary
to morals or good customs. %onversely, even in the e2ercise of a
formal right, 3one4 cannot with impunity
intentionally cause damage to another in a manner contrary to
morals or good customs.4/"
0he Co$rt of +ppeals likewise r$led that the at$ation of Ms7 'i
in approahin. several people to inA$ire into thepresene of Mr7
#e&es e@posed the latter to ridi$le and was $nalled for as she
sho$ld have approahed Dr7 ;ilart firstand %oth of the sho$ld have
talked to Mr7 #e&es in private9
)aid acts of appellee "im are uncalled for. 5hat should have
been done by appellee "im was to approach appellee
Mrs. /ilart and together they should have told appellant !eyes
in private that the latter should leave the party as
the celebrant only wanted close friends around. 1t is necessary
that Mrs. /ilart be the one to approach appellant
because it was she who invited appellant in that occasion. 5ere
it not for Mrs. /ilarts invitation, appellant could not
have suffered such humiliation. /or that, appellee /ilart is
equally liable.
. . .
The acts of 3appellee4 "im are causes of action which are
predicated upon mere rudeness or lack of consideration
of one person, which calls not only protection of human dignity
but respect of such dignity. 6nder &rticle '7 of the
%ivil %ode, every person who violates this duty becomes liable
for damages, especially if said acts were attended by
malice or bad faith. 8ad faith does not simply connote bad
0udgment or simple negligence. 1t imports a dishonest
purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong,
a breach of a known duty to some motive or
interest or ill9will that partakes of the nature of fraud
#%o0uangco, :r. v. %&, et al., +7; )%!& 7+-.44"
ConseA$entl&, the Co$rt of +ppeals iposed $pon Hotel Nikko,
#$%& 'i and Dr7 Violeta ;ilart the solidar& o%li.ationto
pa& Mr7 #e&es (!) e@eplar& daa.es in the ao$nt of 0wo
H$ndred 0ho$sand 8esos (8*--,---) (*) oral daa.esin the ao$nt of
0wo H$ndred 0ho$sand 8esos (8*--,---) and (/) attorne&s fees in
the ao$nt of 0en 0ho$sand 8esos(8!-,---)74:" On otion for
reonsideration, the Co$rt of +ppeals affired its earlier deision as
the ar.$ent raised inthe otion had %een apl& dis$ssed and
passed $pon in the deision so$.ht to %e reonsidered74"
0h$s, the instant petition for review7 Hotel Nikko and #$%&
'i ontend that the Co$rt of +ppeals serio$sl& erred inI.
T1 !II.
H>!&""= "1&8"> 51TH D!. /1"&!T /
D&M&$>) )1%> 8= 1T) !>D )6%H H6M1"1&T1!>
1T $&!D) TH> %1!%6M)T&%>)
TH&T &"">$>D"= %&6)>D TH>
H6M1"1&T1%&6)> >! & 1))6> &D <
>1D>%> 5&) P!>)>T>D 1 TH1)
!>$&!D-.
1 /&1"1$ T< P&)) 6P 1))6> D>/>%T)
&PP>""&T) 8!1>/, TH>!>8=
D>P&!T1$ /! &%%>PT>D &D 6)6&" %
8/17/2019 Hotel Nikko v. Reyes, 452 S 532
3/4
dotrine does not find appliation to the ase at %ar %ea$se even
if respondent #e&es ass$ed the risk of %ein. askedto leave the
part&, petitioners, $nder +rtiles !5 and *! of the New Civil
Code, were still $nder o%li.ation to treat hi fairl&in order
not to e@pose hi to $nneessar& ridi$le and shae7
0h$s, the threshold iss$e is whether or not #$%& 'i ated
a%$sivel& in askin. #o%erto #e&es, a7k7a7 +a&
3isa&a,to leave the part& where he was not invited %&
the ele%rant thereof there%& %eoin. lia%le $nder +rtiles !5 and
*! ofthe Civil Code7 8arenthetiall&, and if #$%& 'i were so
lia%le, whether or not Hotel Nikko, as her eplo&er, is
solidaril&lia%le with her7
+s the trial o$rt and the appellate o$rt reahed diver.ent
and irreonila%le onl$sions onernin. the sae fatsand evidene of the
ase, this Co$rt is left witho$t hoie %$t to $se its latent power to
review s$h findin.s of fats7Indeed, the .eneral r$le is that we are
not a trier of fats as o$r "
+rtile !5, known to ontain what is oonl& referred to
as the priniple of a%$se of ri.hts, :5" is not a panaea foall
h$an h$rts and soial .rievanes7 +rtile !5 states9
&rt. (;. >very person must, in the e2ercise of his rights
and in the performance of his duties, act with 0ustice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn54http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn55http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn56http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/154259.htm#_ftn59
