Nikko Hotel vs.

Reyes
TITLE: Nikko Hotel Manila vs. Reyes
CITATION: GR No. 154259, February 28, 2005

FACTS:

Petitioners Nikko Hotel Manila and Ruby Lim assailed the decision of the Court of Appeals in
reversing the decision of RTC of Quezon City.  CA held petitioner liable for damages to Roberto
Reyes aka “Amang Bisaya”, an entertainment artist.

There are two versions of the story:

Mr. Reyes: On the eve of October 13, 1994, Mr. Reyes while having coffee at the lobby of Nikko
Hotel was approached by Dr. Violet Filart, a friend several years back.  According to Mr. Reyes, Dr.
Filart invited him to join a birthday party at the penthouse for the hotel’s former General Manager,
Mr. Tsuruoka.  Plaintiff agreed as Dr. Filart agreed to vouch for him and carried a basket of fruits,
the latter’s gift.  He He lined up at the buffet table as soon as it was ready but to his great shock,
shame and embarrassment, Ruby Lim, Hotel’s Executive Secretary, asked him to leave in a loud
voice enough to be heard by the people around them.  He was asked to leave the party and a Makati
policeman accompanied him to step-out the hotel.  All these time, Dr Filart ignored him adding to his
shame and humiliation.

Ms. Ruby Lim: She admitted asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party but not in the manner claimed by
the plaintiff.  Ms. Lim approached several people including Dr. Filart’s sister, Ms. Zenaida Fruto, if
Dr. Filart did invite him as the captain waiter told Ms. Lim that Mr. Reyes was with Dr. Filart’s
group.  She wasn’t able to ask it personally with Dr. Filart since the latter was talking over the phone
and doesn’t want to interrupt her.  She asked Mr. Reyes to leave because the celebrant specifically
ordered that the party should be intimate consisting only of those who part of the list.  She even
asked politely with the plaintiff to finish his food then leave the party.

During the plaintiff’s cross-examination, he was asked how close was Ms. Lim when she approached
him at the buffet table.  Mr. Reyes answered “very close because we nearly kissed each other”. 
Considering the close proximity, it was Ms. Lim’s intention to relay the request only be heard by
him.  It was Mr. Reyes who made a scene causing everybody to know what happened.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners acted abusively in asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party.

HELD:

Supreme Court held that petitioners did not act abusively in asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party. 
Plaintiff failed to establish any proof of ill-motive on the part of Ms. Lim who did all the necessary
precautions to ensure that Mr. Reyes will not be humiliated in requesting him to leave the party. 
Considering almost 20 years of experience in the hotel industry, Ms. Lim is experienced enough to
know how to handle such matters.   Hence, petitioners will not be held liable for damages brought
under Article 19 and 20 of the Civil Code.
Quisumbing vs MERALCO
TITLE: Sps. Quisumbing vs. MERALCO
CITATION: GR No. 142943, April 3, 2002

FACTS:

The plaintiff, spouses Antonio and Lorna Quisumbing are the owners of a house located at #94
Greenmeadows Avenue, Quezon City.  Around 9AM on March 3, 1995, defendant’s inspectors
headed by Emmanuel C. Orlino were assigned to conduct a routine on the spot inspection of all
single phase meters at the house and observed as standard operating procedure to ask permission and
was granted by the plaintiff’s secretary.  After the inspection, it was found that the meter had been
tampered with.  The result was relayed to the secretary who conveyed the information to the owners
of the house.  The inspectors advised that the meter be brought in their laboratory for further
verifications.  In the event that the meter was indeed tampered, defendant had to temporarily
disconnect the electric services of the couple.  After an hour, inspectors returned and informed the
findings of the laboratory and asked the couple that unless they pay the amount of P178,875.01
representing the differential bill their electric supply will be disconnected.  The plaintiff filed
complaint for damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction despite the
immediate reconnection.

ISSUE: Whether or not MERALCO acted maliciously and malevolent manner done without due
process, lack of regard for QUISUMBING’s rights, feelings, social and business reputation and
therefore held them accountable and plaintiff be entitled for damages.

HELD:

Supreme Court partly granted the petition and ordered plaintiff to pay respondent the billing
differential of P193,332.96 while latter is ordered to pay petitioners moral and exemplary damages
including attorney’s fees.  Moral damages may be recovered when rights of individuals including
right against the deprivation of property without due process of law are violated.  Exemplary
damages on the other hand are imposed by way of example or correction for public.  SC recognized
the effort of MERALCO in preventing illegal use of electricity.  However, any action must be done
in strict observance of the rights of the people.  “Under the law, the Manila Electric Company
(Meralco) mayimmediately disconnect electric service on the ground of alleged meter tampering, but
only if the discovery of the cause is personally witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law or
by a duly authorized representative of the Energy Regulatory Board”.  During the inspection, no
government official or ERB representative was present.

Petitioner’s claim for actual damages was not granted for failure to supply proof and was premised
only upon Lorna’s testimony.  These are compensation for an injury that will put the injure position
where it was before it was injured.  
Gasheem Shookat Baksh vs CA
TITLE: Gasheem Shookat Baksh vs. CA
CITATION: 219 SCRA 115

FACTS:
Private respondent, Marilou Gonzales, filed a complaint dated October 27, 1987 for damages against
the petitioner for the alleged breach of their agreement to get married.  She met the petitioner in
Dagupan where the latter was an Iranian medical exchange student who later courted her and
proposed marriage.  The petitioner even went to Marilou’s house to secure approval of her parents. 
The petitioner then forced the respondent to leave with him in his apartment.  Marilou was a virgin
before she lived with him.  After a week, she filed a complaint because the petitioner started
maltreating and threatening her.  He even tied the respondent in the apartment while he was in school
and drugged her.  Marilou at one time became pregnant but the petitioner administered a drug to
abort the baby.

Petitioner repudiated the marriage agreement and told Marilou to not live with him since he is
already married to someone in Bacolod.  He claimed that he never proposed marriage or agreed to be
married neither sought consent and approval of Marliou’s parents.  He claimed that he asked Marilou
to stay out of his apartment since the latter deceived him by stealing money and his passport.  The
private respondent prayed for damages and reimbursements of actual expenses.

ISSUE: Whether breach of promise to marry can give rise to cause for damages.

HELD:
The existing rule is that breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong.  The court held
that when a man uses his promise of marriage to deceive a woman to consent to his malicious
desires, he commits fraud and willfully injures the woman.  In that instance, the court found that
petitioner’s deceptive promise to marry led Marilou to surrender her virtue and womanhood.

Moral damages can be claimed when such promise to marry was a deceptive ploy to have carnal
knowledge with the woman and actual damages should be paid for the wedding preparation
expenses.  Petitioner even committed deplorable acts in disregard of the laws of the country.

Therefore, SC set aside the decision of CA awarding damages to the respondent. 

GLOBE-MACKAY CABLE & RADIO CORP., VS.
BARRIOS
119 SCRA 461

FACTS:
Petitioner cable company failed to deliver to respondent spouses, both physicians, acable gram from Mercy
Hospital, Buffalo, New York, admitting the respondent-wifefor a rotating internship in said hospital, as a
consequence of which, she was unableto signify her acceptance and the position was given to someone else.An
action to recover damages was granted by the court.

ISSUE:Was the award for damages proper?

HELD:[I]The SC agrees with the finding of the trial court and the Appellate Court thatpetitioner
was grossly negligent in having admitted failed to deliver the cablegram,particularly considering that respondents
had received another telegram, identicallyaddressed, delivered to them by Eastern Extension, another cable
company.The SC also agrees with the finding that such failure cause respondents financialdifficulties in New
York, due to loss of earning for approximately 6 months, seriousanxiety and sleepless nights, for which petitioner
should be held liable, and whichshould be corrected for the public good. A telegraphic company is a public
servicecorporation owing duties to the general public and is liable to any member of thepublic to whom it owes a
duty for damages proximately flowing from a violation of that duty.
University of the East vs Jader
TITLE: University of the East vs. Jader
CITATION: GR No. 132344, February 7, 2000

FACTS:

Romeo Jader graduated at UE College of law from 1984-88.  During his last year, 1stsemester, he
failed to take the regular final examination in Practical Court 1where he was given an incomplete
grade remarks.  He filed an application for removal of the incomplete grade given by Prof. Carlos
Ortega on February 1, 1988 which was approved by Dean Celedonio Tiongson after the payment of
required fees.  He took the exam on March 28 and on May 30, the professor gave him a grade of 5.

The commencement exercise of UE College of law was held April 16, 1988, 3PM.  In the invitation,
his name appeared.  In preparation for the bar exam, he took a leave of absence from work from
April 20- Sept 30, 1988.  He had his pre-bar class review in FEU.  Upon learning of such deficiency,
he dropped his review classes and was not able to take the bar exam. 

Jader sued UE for damages resulting to moral shock, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, sleepless nights due to UE’s negligence.

ISSUE: Whether UE should be held liable for misleading a student into believing JADER satisfied
all the requirements for graduation when such is not the case.  Can he claim moral damages?

HELD:
SC held that petitioner was guilty of negligence and this liable to respondent for the latter’s actual
damages. Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform the students of their academic status and
not wait for the latter to inquire from the former.  However, respondent should not have been
awarded moral damages though JADER suffered shock, trauma, and pain when he was informed that
he could not graduate and will not be allowed to take the bar examinations as what CA held because
it’s also respondent’s duty to verify for himself whether he has completed all necessary requirements
to be eligible for the bar examinations.  As a senior law student, he should have been responsible in
ensuring that all his affairs specifically those in relation with his academic achievement are in order. 
Before taking the bar examinations, it doesn’t only entail a mental preparation on the subjects but
there are other prerequisites such as documentation and submission of requirements which
prospective examinee must meet. 

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Petitioner is ORDERED to PAY respondent the sum of Thirty-five Thousand Four Hundred Seventy
Pesos (P35,470.00), with legal interest of 6% per annum computed from the date of filing of the
complaint until fully paid; the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) as attorney's fees; and the
costs of the suit. The award of moral damages is DELETED.
Pe vs Pe
TITLE: Pe vs. Pe
CITATION: 5 SCRA 200

FACTS:

Alfonso Pe, the defendant, was a married man, agent of La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory in
Gasan Marinduque who was treated like a son by Cecilio Pe, one of the petitioners.  Cecilio
introduced Alfonso to his children and was given access to visit their house. Alfonso got fond of
Lolita, 24 year old single, daughter of Cecilio.  The defendant frequented the house of Lolita
sometime in 1952 on the pretext that he wanted her to teach him how to pray the rosary.  Eventually
they fell in love with each other.

Plaintiff brought action before lower court of Manila and failed to prove Alfonso deliberately and in
bad faith tried to win Lolita’s affection.  The case on moral damages was dismissed.

ISSUE: Whether or not defendant is liable to Lolita’s family on the ground of moral, good custom
and public policy due to their illicit affair.

HELD:
Alfonso committed an injury to Lolita’s family in a manner contrary to morals, good customs and
public policy contemplated in Article 20 of the civil code.  The defendant took advantage of the trust
of Cecilio and even used the praying of rosary as a reason to get close with Lolita.  The wrong caused
by Alfonso is immeasurable considering the fact that he is a married man. 

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed. Defendant is hereby sentenced to pay the
plaintiffs the sum of P5,000.00 as damages and P2,000.00 as attorney's fees and expenses of
litigations. Costs against appellee.