SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 154259. February 28, 2005.]

NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN and RUBY LIM, petitioners, vs.

ROBERTO REYES, a.k.a. "AMAY BISAYA," respondent.

Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz for petitioners.

Vicente D. Millora for respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; CANNOT BE RECOVERED WHEN THE DOCTRINE

OF VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA IS APPLICABLE. — The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria
("to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury") refers to self-inflicted injury or to
the consent to injury which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly and
voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so. aETADI

2. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE; APPEALS; PETITION FOR REVIEW

ON CERTIORARI; LIMITED TO REVIEWING ERRORS OF LAW; EXCEPTION; PRESENT
IN CASE AT BAR. — As the trial court and the appellate court reached divergent and
irreconcilable conclusions concerning the same facts and evidence of the case, this Court is left
without choice but to use its latent power to review such findings of facts. Indeed, the general
rule is that we are not a trier of facts as our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising
errors of law. One of the exceptions to this general rule, however, obtains herein as the findings
of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court. The lower court ruled that Ms.
Lim did not abuse her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave the party as she talked to him politely and
discreetly. The appellate court, on the other hand, held that Ms. Lim is liable for damages as she
needlessly embarrassed Mr. Reyes by telling him not to finish his food and to leave the place
within hearing distance of the other guests. Both courts, however, were in agreement that it was
Dr. Filart's invitation that brought Mr. Reyes to the party.

3. CIVIL LAW; PRINCIPLE OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS; ELEMENTS. — Article 19,

known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, is not a
panacea for all human hurts and social grievances. . . . Elsewhere, we explained that 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". The object of this article, therefore, is to set certain standards which must
be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties.
These standards are the following: act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty
and good faith. Its antithesis, necessarily, is any act evincing bad faith or intent to injure. Its
elements are the following: (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. When Article 19 is violated, an action
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 1
 for damages is proper under Articles 20 or 21 of the 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.

4. ID.; ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES; ELEMENTS. — 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.

DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J : p

In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners Nikko Hotel Manila Garden (Hotel
Nikko) 1(1) and Ruby Lim assail the Decision 2(2) of the Court of Appeals dated 26 November
2001 reversing the Decision 3(3) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch
104, as well as the Resolution 4(4) of the Court of Appeals dated 09 July 2002 which denied
petitioners' motion for reconsideration.

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 the screen name "Amay Bisaya," alleged that at around 6:00 o'clock
in the evening of 13 October 1994, while he was having coffee at the lobby of Hotel Nikko, 5(5)
he was spotted by his friend of several years, Dr. Violeta Filart, who then approached him. 6(6)
Mrs. Filart invited him to join her in a party at the hotel's penthouse in celebration of the natal
day of the hotel's manager, Mr. Masakazu Tsuruoka. 7(7) Mr. Reyes asked if she could vouch
for him for which she replied: "of course." 8(8) Mr. Reyes then went up with the party of Dr.
Filart carrying the basket of fruits which was the latter's present for the celebrant. 9(9) At the
penthouse, they first had their picture taken with the celebrant after which Mr. Reyes sat with
the party of Dr. Filart. 10(10) 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 petitioner herein, Ruby Lim, who claimed to speak for Hotel Nikko as Executive
Secretary thereof. 11(11) 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 ("huwag ka
nang kumain, hindi ka imbitado, bumaba ka na lang"). 12(12) Mr. Reyes tried to explain that he
was invited by Dr. Filart. 13(13) Dr. Filart, who was within hearing distance, however,
completely ignored him thus adding to his shame and humiliation. 14(14) Not long after, while
he was still recovering from the traumatic experience, a Makati policeman approached and
asked him to step out of the hotel. 15(15) Like a common criminal, he was escorted out of the
party by the policeman. 16(16) Claiming damages, Mr. Reyes asked for One Million Pesos
actual damages, One Million Pesos moral and/or exemplary damages and Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos attorney's fees. 17(17)

Ruby Lim, for her part, admitted having asked Mr. Reyes to leave the party but not under
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 2
 the ignominious circumstance painted by the latter. Ms. Lim narrated that she was the Hotel's
Executive Secretary for the past twenty (20) years. 18(18) One of her functions included
organizing the birthday party of the hotel's former General Manager, Mr. Tsuruoka. 19(19) The
year 1994 was no different. For Mr. Tsuruoka's party, Ms. Lim generated an exclusive guest list
and extended invitations accordingly. 20(20) The guest list was limited to approximately sixty
(60) of Mr. Tsuruoka's closest friends and some hotel employees and that Mr. Reyes was not one
of those invited. 21(21) At the party, Ms. Lim first noticed Mr. Reyes at the bar counter ordering
a drink. 22(22) Mindful of Mr. Tsuruoka's wishes to keep the party intimate, Ms. Lim
approached Mr. Boy Miller, the "captain waiter," to inquire as to the presence of Mr. Reyes who
was not invited. 23(23) Mr. Miller replied that he saw Mr. Reyes with the group of Dr. Filart.
24(24) As Dr. Filart was engaged in 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
her that Dr. Filart did not invite Mr. Reyes. 25(25) Ms. Lim then requested Ms. Fruto to tell Mr.
Reyes to leave the party as he was not invited. 26(26) Mr. Reyes, however, lingered prompting
Ms. Lim to inquire from Ms. Fruto who said that Mr. Reyes did not want to leave. 27(27) When
Ms. Lim turned around, she saw Mr. Reyes conversing with a Captain Batung whom she later
approached. 28(28) Believing that Captain Batung and Mr. Reyes knew each other, Ms. Lim
requested from him the same favor from Ms. Fruto, i.e., for Captain Batung to tell Mr. Reyes to
leave the party as he was not invited. 29(29) Still, Mr. Reyes lingered. When Ms. Lim spotted
Mr. Reyes by the buffet table, she decided to speak to him herself as there were no other guests
in the immediate vicinity. 30(30) However, as Mr. Reyes was already helping himself to the
food, she decided to wait. 31(31) When Mr. Reyes went to a corner and started to eat, Ms. Lim
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 pwede lang po umalis na kayo."
32(32) She then turned around trusting that Mr. Reyes would show enough decency to leave, but
to her surprise, he began screaming and making a big scene, and even threatened to dump food
on her. 33(33)

Dr. Violeta Filart, the third defendant in the complaint before the lower court, also gave
her version of the story to the effect that she never invited Mr. Reyes to the party. 34(34)
According to her, it was Mr. Reyes 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.
35(35) When they reached the penthouse, she reminded Mr. Reyes to go down as he was not
properly dressed and was not invited. 36(36) All the while, she thought that Mr. Reyes already
left the place, but she later saw him at the bar talking to Col. Batung. 37(37) Then there was a
commotion and she saw Mr. Reyes shouting. 38(38) She ignored Mr. Reyes. 39(39) She was
embarrassed and did not want the celebrant to think that she invited him. 40(40)

After trial on the merits, the court a quo dismissed the complaint, 41(41) giving more
credence to the testimony of Ms. Lim that she was discreet in asking Mr. Reyes to leave the
party. The trial court likewise ratiocinated that Mr. Reyes assumed the risk of being thrown out
of the party as he was uninvited:

Plaintiff had no business being at the party because he was not a guest of Mr.
Tsuruoka, the birthday celebrant. He assumed the risk of being asked to leave for attending
a party to which he was not invited by the host. Damages are pecuniary consequences
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 3
 which the law imposes for the breach of some duty or the violation of some right. Thus, no
recovery can be had against defendants Nikko Hotel and Ruby Lim because he himself was
at fault (Garciano v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 436). He knew that it was not the party
of defendant Violeta Filart even if she allowed him to join her and took responsibility for
his attendance at the party. His action against defendants Nikko Hotel and Ruby Lim must
therefore fail. 42(42)

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the trial court as it found more
commanding of belief the testimony of Mr. Reyes that Ms. Lim ordered him to leave in a loud
voice within hearing distance of several guests:

In 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 (Art. 21, New Civil Code). The
liability arises from the acts which are in themselves legal or not prohibited, but contrary to
morals or good customs. Conversely, even in the exercise of a formal right, [one] cannot with
impunity intentionally cause damage to another in a manner contrary to morals or good customs.
43(43)

The Court of Appeals likewise ruled that the actuation of Ms. Lim in approaching several people
to inquire into the presence of Mr. Reyes exposed the latter to ridicule and was uncalled for as
she should have approached Dr. Filart first and both of them should have talked to Mr. Reyes in
private:

Said acts of appellee Lim are uncalled for. What should have been done by appellee
Lim was to approach appellee Mrs. Filart and together they should have told appellant
Reyes in private that the latter should leave the party as the celebrant only wanted close
friends around. It is necessary that Mrs. Filart be the one to approach appellant because it
was she who invited appellant in that occasion. Were it not for Mrs. Filart's invitation,
appellant could not have suffered such humiliation. For that, appellee Filart is equally
liable. cTDaEH

xxx xxx xxx

The acts of [appellee] Lim 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. Under Article 20 of the Civil Code, every person who
violates this duty becomes liable for damages, especially if said acts were attended by
malice or bad faith. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or simple negligence.
It 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 ill-will that partakes of the nature of
fraud (Cojuangco, Jr. v. CA, et al., 309 SCRA 603). 44(44)

Consequently, the Court of Appeals imposed upon Hotel Nikko, Ruby Lim and Dr.
Violeta Filart the solidary obligation to pay Mr. Reyes (1) exemplary damages in the amount of
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000); (2) moral damages in the amount of Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P200,000); and (3) attorney's fees in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000). 45(45) On motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals affirmed its earlier
decision as the argument raised in the motion had "been amply discussed and passed upon in the

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 4
 decision sought to be reconsidered." 46(46)

Thus, the instant petition for review. Hotel Nikko and Ruby Lim contend that the Court
of Appeals seriously erred in —

I.

. . . NOT APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA

CONSIDERING THAT BY ITS OWN FINDINGS, AMAY BISAYA WAS A
GATE-CRASHER

II.

. . . HOLDING HOTEL NIKKO AND RUBY LIM JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY

LIABLE WITH DR. FILART FOR DAMAGES SINCE BY ITS OWN RULING, AMAY
BISAYA "COULD NOT HAVE SUFFERED SUCH HUMILIATION," "WERE IT NOT
FOR DR. FILART'S INVITATION"

III.

. . . DEPARTING FROM THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE TRIAL COURT AS

REGARDS THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ALLEGEDLY CAUSED THE
HUMILIATION OF AMAY BISAYA

IV.

. . . IN CONCLUDING THAT AMAY BISAYA WAS TREATED UNJUSTLY

BECAUSE OF HIS POVERTY, CONSIDERING THAT THIS WAS NEVER AN ISSUE
AND NO EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED IN THIS REGARD

V.

. . . IN FAILING TO PASS UPON THE ISSUE ON THE DEFECTS OF THE

APPELLANT'S BRIEF, THEREBY DEPARTING FROM THE ACCEPTED AND
USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Petitioners Lim and Hotel Nikko contend that pursuant to the doctrine of volenti non fit
injuria, they cannot be made liable for damages as respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being
asked to leave (and being embarrassed and humiliated in the process) as he was a "gate-crasher."
HcDSaT

The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria ("to which a person assents is not esteemed in law
as injury" 47(47) ) refers to self-inflicted injury 48(48) or to the consent to injury 49(49) which
precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself
to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so. 50(50) As formulated by petitioners, however,
this doctrine does not find application to the case at bar because even if respondent Reyes
assumed the risk of being asked to leave the party, petitioners, under Articles 19 and 21 of the
New Civil Code, were still under obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him to
unnecessary ridicule and shame. iatdcjur

Thus, the threshold issue is whether or not Ruby Lim acted abusively in asking Roberto
Reyes, a.k.a. "Amay Bisaya," to leave the party where he was not invited by the celebrant
thereof thereby becoming liable under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Parenthetically, and
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 5
 if Ruby Lim were so liable, whether or not Hotel Nikko, as her employer, is solidarily liable
with her.

As the trial court and the appellate court reached divergent and irreconcilable conclusions
concerning the same facts and evidence of the case, this Court is left without choice but to use
its latent power to review such findings of facts. Indeed, the general rule is that we are not a trier
of facts as our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law. 51(51) One of the
exceptions to this general rule, however, obtains herein as the findings of the Court of Appeals
are contrary to those of the trial court. 52(52) The lower court ruled that Ms. Lim did not abuse
her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave the party as she talked to him politely and discreetly. The
appellate court, on the other hand, held that Ms. Lim is liable for damages as she needlessly
embarrassed Mr. Reyes by telling him not to finish his food and to leave the place within
hearing distance of the other guests. Both courts, however, were in agreement that it was Dr.
Filart's invitation that brought Mr. Reyes to the party.

The consequential question then is: Which version is credible?

From an in depth review of the evidence, we find more credible the lower court's findings
of fact.

First, let us put things in the proper perspective.

We are dealing with a formal party in a posh, five-star hotel, 53(53) for-invitation-only,
thrown for the hotel's former Manager, a Japanese national. Then came a person who was
clearly uninvited (by the celebrant) 54(54) and who could not just disappear into the crowd as
his face is known by many, being an actor. While he was already spotted by the organizer of the
party, Ms. Lim, the very person who generated the guest list, it did not yet appear that the
celebrant was aware of his presence. Ms. Lim, mindful of the celebrant's instruction to keep the
party intimate, would naturally want to get rid of the "gate-crasher" in the most hush-hush
manner in order not to call attention to a glitch in an otherwise seamless affair and, in the
process, risk the displeasure of the celebrant, her former boss. To unnecessarily call attention to
the presence of Mr. Reyes would certainly reflect badly on Ms. Lim's ability to follow the
instructions of the celebrant to invite only his close friends and some of the hotel's personnel.
Mr. Reyes, upon whom the burden rests to prove that indeed Ms. Lim loudly and rudely ordered
him to leave, could not offer any satisfactory explanation why Ms. Lim would do that and risk
ruining a formal and intimate affair. On the contrary, Mr. Reyes, on cross-examination, had
unwittingly sealed his fate by admitting that when Ms. Lim talked to him, she was very close.
Close enough for him to kiss:

Q: And, Mr. Reyes, you testified that Miss Lim approached you while you were at the
buffet table? How close was she when she approached you?

A: Very close because we nearly kissed each other.

Q: And yet, she shouted for you to go down? She was that close and she shouted?

A: Yes. She said, "wag kang kumain, hindi ka imbitado dito, bumaba ka na lang."

Q: So, you are testifying that she did this in a loud voice? HTcADC

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 6
 xxx xxx xxx

A: Yes. If it is not loud, it will not be heard by many. 55(55)

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 unlikely that she would shout at him from a very close
distance. Ms. Lim having been in the hotel business for twenty years wherein being polite and
discreet are virtues to be emulated, the testimony of Mr. Reyes that she acted to the contrary
does not inspire belief and is indeed incredible. Thus, the lower court was correct in observing
that —

Considering the closeness of defendant Lim to plaintiff when the request for the
latter to leave the party was made such that they nearly kissed each other, the request was
meant to be heard by him only and there could have been no intention on her part to cause
embarrassment to him. It was plaintiff's reaction to the request that must have made the
other guests aware of what transpired between them. . . .

Had plaintiff simply left the party as requested, there was no need for the police to
take him out. 56(56)

Moreover, another problem with Mr. Reyes's version of the story 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 — Danny Rodinas, Pepito Guerrero and
Alexander Silva — proved only that it was Dr. Filart who invited him to the party. 57(57)

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 employee. 58(58)

Article 19, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of
rights, 59(59) is not a panacea for all human hurts and social grievances. Article 19 states:

Art. 19. 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.

Elsewhere, we explained that 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." 60(60) The object of this article,
therefore, is to set certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one's
rights but also in the performance of one's duties. 61(61) These standards are the following: act
with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. 62(62) Its antithesis,
necessarily, is any act evincing bad faith or intent to injure. Its elements are the following: (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. 63(63) When Article 19 is violated, an action for damages is
proper under Articles 20 or 21 of the Civil Code. Article 20 pertains to damages arising from a
violation of law 64(64) 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:

Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 7
 that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage.

Article 21 65(65) 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. 66(66)

A common theme runs through Articles 19 and 21, 67(67) and that is, the act complained
of must be intentional. 68(68)

As applied to herein case and as earlier discussed, Mr. Reyes has not shown that Ms. Lim
was driven by animosity against him. These two people did not know each other personally
before the evening of 13 October 1994, thus, Mr. Reyes had nothing to offer for an explanation
for Ms. Lim's alleged abusive conduct except the statement that Ms. Lim, being "single at 44
years old," had a "very strong bias and prejudice against (Mr. Reyes) possibly influenced by her
associates in her work at the hotel with foreign businessmen." 69(69) The lameness of this
argument need not be belabored. Suffice it to say that a complaint based on Articles 19 and 21
of the Civil Code must necessarily fail if it has nothing to recommend it but innuendos and
conjectures.

Parenthetically, the manner by which Ms. Lim asked Mr. Reyes to leave was likewise
acceptable and humane under the circumstances. In this regard, we cannot put our imprimatur on
the appellate court's declaration that Ms. Lim's act of personally approaching Mr. Reyes
(without first verifying from Mrs. Filart if indeed she invited Mr. Reyes) gave rise to a cause of
action "predicated upon mere rudeness or lack of consideration of one person, which calls not
only protection of human dignity but respect of such dignity." 70(70) Without proof of any
ill-motive on her part, Ms. Lim's act of by-passing Mrs. Filart cannot amount to abusive conduct
especially because she did inquire from Mrs. Filart's companion who told her that Mrs. Filart did
not invite Mr. Reyes. 71(71) If at all, Ms. Lim is guilty only of bad judgment which, if done with
good intentions, cannot amount to bad faith.

Not being liable for both actual and moral damages, neither can petitioners Lim and Hotel
Nikko be made answerable for exemplary damages 72(72) especially for the reason stated by the
Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held —

Not a few of the rich people treat the poor with contempt because of the latter's
lowly station in life. This has to be limited somewhere. In a democracy, such a limit must
be established. Social equality is not sought by the legal provisions under consideration, but
due regard for decency and propriety (Code Commission, pp. 33-34). And by way of
example or correction for public good and to avert further commission of such acts,
exemplary damages should be imposed upon appellees. 73(73)

The fundamental fallacy in the above-quoted findings is that it runs counter with the very facts
of the case and the evidence on hand. It is not disputed that at the time of the incident in
question, Mr. Reyes was "an actor of long standing; a co-host of a radio program over DZRH; a
Board Member of the Music Singer Composer (MUSICO) chaired by popular singer Imelda
Papin; a showbiz Coordinator of Citizen Crime Watch; and 1992 official candidate of the KBL
Party for Governor of Bohol; and an awardee of a number of humanitarian organizations of the
Philippines." 74(74) During his direct examination on rebuttal, Mr. Reyes stressed that he had
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 8
 income 75(75) and nowhere did he say otherwise. On the other hand, the records are bereft of
any information as to the social and economic standing of petitioner Ruby Lim. Consequently,
the conclusion reached by the appellate court cannot withstand scrutiny as it is without basis. CAcDTI

All told, and as far as Ms. Lim and Hotel Nikko are concerned, any damage which Mr.
Reyes might have suffered through Ms. Lim's exercise of a legitimate right done within the
bounds of propriety and good faith, must be his to bear alone.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition filed by Ruby Lim and Nikko Hotel
Manila Garden is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26 November 2001
and its Resolution dated 09 July 2002 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 104, dated 26 April 1999 is hereby
AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and Tinga, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Now Dusit Hotel Nikko.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria with Justices Teodoro P. Regino and Rebecca
de Guia-Salvador concurring (Rollo, pp. 48-57).
3. Penned by Judge Thelma A. Ponferrada.
4. Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria with Justices Teodoro P. Regino and Rebecca
de Guia-Salvador concurring (Rollo, pp. 59-60).
5. TSN, 08 March 1995, p. 8.
6. Id. at 10.
7. Ibid.
8. Id. 11.
9. Id. at 13.
10. Id. at 13 & 16.
11. COMPLAINT, RTC Record, p. 2.
12. Supra, note 5 at 17.
13. Supra, note 11.
14. Ibid.
15. Id. at 2-3.
16. Id. at 3.
17. Ibid.
18. TSN, 27 July 1996, p. 9.
19. Id. at 10.
20. Id. at 12-13, 15.
21. Id. at 15-17, 25.
22. Id. at 25.
23. Id. at 27.
24. Ibid.
25. Id. at 31-32.
26. Id. at 33.
27. Id. at 37.
28. Id. at 38-39.
29. Ibid.
30. Petition, Rollo, p. 18.
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 9
 31. Supra, note 29 at 41-42.
32. Id. at 42-43.
33. Answer, pp. 32-33, RTC Records; RTC Decision, Rollo p. 62; TSN, 27 July 1995, pp. 43-46.
34. TSN, 05 November 1997, p. 15.
35. Violeta Filart's "ANSWER WITH COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM," RTC Records, p. 21.
36. Supra, note 34 at 17.
37. Or "Captain Batung" from the testimony of Ruby Lim; Id. at 18.
38. Id. at 19.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid.
41. Dismissed as well were the counterclaims filed by then defendants Nikko Hotel Manila Garden,
Ruby Lim and Violeta Filart, RTC Records, p. 347.
42. RTC Records, p. 342.
43. CA Rollo, p. 205.
44. Id. at 208-209.
45. Id. at 238.
46. CA Rollo, pp. 239-240.
47. E.L. Pineda, Torts and Damages Annotated, p. 52 (2004 ed).
48. Garciano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96126, 10 August 1992, 212 SCRA 436, 440.
49. cf. Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74553, 08 June 1989,
174 SCRA 80, 88.
50. Sangco, Torts and Damages Vol. 1 , pp. 83-84.
51. Floro v. Llenado, G.R. No. 75723, 02 June 1995, 244 SCRA 713, 720.
52. Ibid.
53. TSN, 22 May 1999, p. 11.
54. Admitted by Mr. Reyes, see TSN, 15 March 1995, p. 10.
55. TSN, 15 March 1995, p. 20.
56. RTC Records, pp. 340-341.
57. Danny Rodinas and Pepito Guerrero (TSN, 18 May 1995), Alexander Silva (TSN, 21 June
1995).
58. Article 2180, Civil Code.
59. Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81262, 25 August 1989,
176 SCRA 779, 783.
60. Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88694, 11 January 1993, 217 SCRA
16, 25.
61. Supra, note 61 at 783-784.
62. Ibid.
63. Supra, note 62.
64. Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another,
shall indemnify the latter for the same. See Globe Mackay, supra, note 61 at 784.
65. Civil Code.
66. Supra, note 62 at 25.
67. Civil Code.
68. Ibid.
69. "COMMENT," Rollo, p. 302; "MEMORANDUM," Rollo, p. 417.
70. CA Rollo, p. 209.
71. In fact, Mrs. Filart herself, in her testimony and in her pleadings, consistently disclaimed having
invited Mr. Reyes to the party such that when Mr. Reyes was being escorted out of the
penthouse, she lifted nary a finger to his rescue.
72. Art. 2234, Civil Code.
73. CA Rollo, pp. 209-210.
74. Appellant's Brief, CA Rollo, p. 27; see also TSN, 08 March 1995, pp. 7-8.
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 10
 75. TSN, 29 October 1998, p. 11.

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 11
 Endnotes

1 (Popup - Popup)
1. Now Dusit Hotel Nikko.

2 (Popup - Popup)
2. Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria with Justices Teodoro P. Regino and Rebecca
de Guia-Salvador concurring (Rollo, pp. 48-57).

3 (Popup - Popup)
3. Penned by Judge Thelma A. Ponferrada.

4 (Popup - Popup)
4. Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria with Justices Teodoro P. Regino and Rebecca
de Guia-Salvador concurring (Rollo, pp. 59-60).

5 (Popup - Popup)
5. TSN, 08 March 1995, p. 8.

6 (Popup - Popup)
6. Id. at 10.

7 (Popup - Popup)
7. Ibid.

8 (Popup - Popup)
8. Id. 11.

9 (Popup - Popup)
9. Id. at 13.

10 (Popup - Popup)
10. Id. at 13 & 16.

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 12
 11 (Popup - Popup)
11. COMPLAINT, RTC Record, p. 2.

12 (Popup - Popup)
12. Supra, note 5 at 17.

13 (Popup - Popup)
13. Supra, note 11.

14 (Popup - Popup)
14. Ibid.

15 (Popup - Popup)
15. Id. at 2-3.

16 (Popup - Popup)
16. Id. at 3.

17 (Popup - Popup)
17. Ibid.

18 (Popup - Popup)
18. TSN, 27 July 1996, p. 9.

19 (Popup - Popup)
19. Id. at 10.

20 (Popup - Popup)
20. Id. at 12-13, 15.

21 (Popup - Popup)
21. Id. at 15-17, 25.

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 13
 22 (Popup - Popup)
22. Id. at 25.

23 (Popup - Popup)
23. Id. at 27.

24 (Popup - Popup)
24. Ibid.

25 (Popup - Popup)
25. Id. at 31-32.

26 (Popup - Popup)
26. Id. at 33.

27 (Popup - Popup)
27. Id. at 37.

28 (Popup - Popup)
28. Id. at 38-39.

29 (Popup - Popup)
29. Ibid.

30 (Popup - Popup)
30. Petition, Rollo, p. 18.

31 (Popup - Popup)
31. Supra, note 29 at 41-42.

32 (Popup - Popup)
32. Id. at 42-43.

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 14
 33 (Popup - Popup)
33. Answer, pp. 32-33, RTC Records; RTC Decision, Rollo p. 62; TSN, 27 July 1995, pp. 43-46.

34 (Popup - Popup)
34. TSN, 05 November 1997, p. 15.

35 (Popup - Popup)
35. Violeta Filart's "ANSWER WITH COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM," RTC Records, p. 21.

36 (Popup - Popup)
36. Supra, note 34 at 17.

37 (Popup - Popup)
37. Or "Captain Batung" from the testimony of Ruby Lim; Id. at 18.

38 (Popup - Popup)
38. Id. at 19.

39 (Popup - Popup)
39. Ibid.

40 (Popup - Popup)
40. Ibid.

41 (Popup - Popup)
41. Dismissed as well were the counterclaims filed by then defendants Nikko Hotel Manila Garden,
Ruby Lim and Violeta Filart, RTC Records, p. 347.

42 (Popup - Popup)
42. RTC Records, p. 342.

43 (Popup - Popup)
43. CA Rollo, p. 205.

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 15
 44 (Popup - Popup)
44. Id. at 208-209.

45 (Popup - Popup)
45. Id. at 238.

46 (Popup - Popup)
46. CA Rollo, pp. 239-240.

47 (Popup - Popup)
47. E.L. Pineda, Torts and Damages Annotated, p. 52 (2004 ed).

48 (Popup - Popup)
48. Garciano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96126, 10 August 1992, 212 SCRA 436, 440.

49 (Popup - Popup)
49. cf. Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74553, 08 June 1989,
174 SCRA 80, 88.

50 (Popup - Popup)
50. Sangco, Torts and Damages Vol. 1 , pp. 83-84.

51 (Popup - Popup)
51. Floro v. Llenado, G.R. No. 75723, 02 June 1995, 244 SCRA 713, 720.

52 (Popup - Popup)
52. Ibid.

53 (Popup - Popup)
53. TSN, 22 May 1999, p. 11.

54 (Popup - Popup)

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 16
 54. Admitted by Mr. Reyes, see TSN, 15 March 1995, p. 10.

55 (Popup - Popup)
55. TSN, 15 March 1995, p. 20.

56 (Popup - Popup)
56. RTC Records, pp. 340-341.

57 (Popup - Popup)
57. Danny Rodinas and Pepito Guerrero (TSN, 18 May 1995), Alexander Silva (TSN, 21 June
1995).

58 (Popup - Popup)
58. Article 2180, Civil Code.

59 (Popup - Popup)
59. Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 81262, 25 August 1989,
176 SCRA 779, 783.

60 (Popup - Popup)
60. Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88694, 11 January 1993, 217 SCRA
16, 25.

61 (Popup - Popup)
61. Supra, note 61 at 783-784.

62 (Popup - Popup)
62. Ibid.

63 (Popup - Popup)
63. Supra, note 62.

64 (Popup - Popup)
64. Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another,
shall indemnify the latter for the same. See Globe Mackay, supra, note 61 at 784.
Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 17
 65 (Popup - Popup)
65. Civil Code.

66 (Popup - Popup)
66. Supra, note 62 at 25.

67 (Popup - Popup)
67. Civil Code.

68 (Popup - Popup)
68. Ibid.

69 (Popup - Popup)
69. "COMMENT," Rollo, p. 302; "MEMORANDUM," Rollo, p. 417.

70 (Popup - Popup)
70. CA Rollo, p. 209.

71 (Popup - Popup)
71. In fact, Mrs. Filart herself, in her testimony and in her pleadings, consistently disclaimed having
invited Mr. Reyes to the party such that when Mr. Reyes was being escorted out of the
penthouse, she lifted nary a finger to his rescue.

72 (Popup - Popup)
72. Art. 2234, Civil Code.

73 (Popup - Popup)
73. CA Rollo, pp. 209-210.

74 (Popup - Popup)
74. Appellant's Brief, CA Rollo, p. 27; see also TSN, 08 March 1995, pp. 7-8.

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 18
 75 (Popup - Popup)
75. TSN, 29 October 1998, p. 11.

Copyright 1994-2019 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2019 First Release 19