Page 1 of 9

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 154259             February 28, 2005

NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN and RUBY LIM, petitioners,

DECISION

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners Nikko Hotel Manila Garden (Hotel Nikko) and 1 

Ruby Lim assail the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26 November 2001 reversing the
2 

Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 104, as well as the
3 

Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 09 July 2002 which denied petitioners’ motion for
4 

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, he was 5 

spotted by his friend of several years, Dr. Violeta Filart, who then approached him. Mrs. Filart 6 

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. Mr. Reyes asked if she could vouch for him for which
7 

she replied: "of course." Mr. Reyes then went up with the party of Dr. Filart carrying the basket of
8 

fruits which was the latter’s present for the celebrant. At the penthouse, they first had their
9 

picture taken with the celebrant after which Mr. Reyes sat with the party of Dr. Filart. After a 10 

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. In a loud voice and within the
11 

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"). Mr. Reyes tried to explain that he was invited by Dr. Filart. Dr. Filart, who was within
12  13 

hearing distance, however, completely ignored him thus adding to his shame and
humiliation. Not long after, while he was still recovering from the traumatic experience, a Makati
14 

policeman approached and asked him to step out of the hotel. Like a common criminal, he was
15 

escorted out of the party by the policeman. Claiming damages, Mr. Reyes asked for One Million
16 

Pesos actual damages, One Million Pesos moral and/or exemplary damages and Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos attorney’s fees. 17

Ruby Lim, for her part, admitted having asked Mr. Reyes to leave the party but not under the
ignominious circumstance painted by the latter. Ms. Lim narrated that she was the Hotel’s
Executive Secretary for the past twenty (20) years. One of her functions included organizing the
18 

birthday party of the hotel’s former General Manager, Mr. Tsuruoka. The year 1994 was no
19 

different. For Mr. Tsuruoka’s party, Ms. Lim generated an exclusive guest list and extended
invitations accordingly. The guest list was limited to approximately sixty (60) of Mr. Tsuruoka’s
20 

closest friends and some hotel employees and that Mr. Reyes was not one of those invited. At 21 

the party, Ms. Lim first noticed Mr. Reyes at the bar counter ordering a drink. Mindful of Mr.
22 

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. Mr. Miller replied that he
23 

saw Mr. Reyes with the group of Dr. Filart. As Dr. Filart was engaged in conversation with
24 

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. Ms. Lim then25 

requested Ms. Fruto to tell Mr. Reyes to leave the party as he was not invited. Mr. Reyes, 26 

however, lingered prompting Ms. Lim to inquire from Ms. Fruto who said that Mr. Reyes did not
 Page 2 of 9

want to leave. When Ms. Lim turned around, she saw Mr. Reyes conversing with a Captain
27 

Batung whom she later approached. Believing that Captain Batung and Mr. Reyes knew each
28 

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. Still, Mr. Reyes lingered. When Ms. Lim
29 

spotted Mr. Reyes by the buffet table, she decided to speak to him herself as there were no other
guests in the immediate vicinity. However, as Mr. Reyes was already helping himself to the food,
30 

she decided to wait. When Mr. Reyes went to a corner and started to eat, Ms. Lim approached
31 

him and said: "alam ninyo, hindo 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." She then 32 

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 
1awphi1.nét

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. According to her,
34 

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. When they
35 

reached the penthouse, she reminded Mr. Reyes to go down as he was not properly dressed and
was not invited. All the while, she thought that Mr. Reyes already left the place, but she later saw
36 

him at the bar talking to Col. Batung. Then there was a commotion and she saw Mr. Reyes
37 

shouting. She ignored Mr. Reyes. She was embarrassed and did not want the celebrant to think
38  39 

that she invited him. 40

After trial on the merits, the court a quo dismissed the complaint, giving more credence to the
41 

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 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

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

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
 Page 3 of 9

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.

...

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

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). On 45 

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 decision sought to be
reconsidered."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

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

V.

… IN FAILING TO PASS UPON THE ISSUE ON THE DEFECTS OF THE APPELLANT’S

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."

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
47  48  49 

damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not
negligent in doing so. As formulated by petitioners, however, this doctrine does not find
50 

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.

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 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. One of the
51 

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
52 

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, for-invitation-only, thrown for the
53 

hotel’s former Manager, a Japanese national. Then came a person who was clearly uninvited (by
the celebrant) and who could not just disappear into the crowd as his face is known by many,
54 

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?

...

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

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

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

Article 19, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, is 59 

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. 1awphi1.nét

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
60 

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
61 

everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. Its antithesis, necessarily, is any act
62 

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 for damages is proper under Articles 20 or 21 of
63 

the Civil Code. Article 20 pertains to damages arising from a violation of law which does not
64 

obtain herein as Ms. Lim was perfectly within her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave. Article 21, on
the other hand, states:
 Page 6 of 9

Art. 21. 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.

Article 21 refers to acts contra bonus mores and has the following elements: (1) There is an act
65 

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

A common theme runs through Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act complained of must be
67 

intentional. 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." The lameness of this argument need not be
69 

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." Without proof of any ill-motive on her
70 

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. If at all, Ms. Lim is guilty only of bad judgment which, if done with good intentions,
71 

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 especially for the reason stated by the Court of
72 

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
l^[Link]

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

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,
l^[Link]

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." During his direct examination on rebuttal, Mr. Reyes stressed that he had
74 

income and nowhere did he say otherwise. On the other hand, the records are bereft of any
75 

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.

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.
 Page 7 of 9

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, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.

Nikko Hotel Manila v. Reyes

FACTS:

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 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, [Link]
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. ZenaidaFruto,
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 Ms. Lim was 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.

The trial court dismissed the complaint, 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 ruled that Mr.
Reyes assumed the risk of being thrown out of the party as he was uninvited. However, 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. CA held petitioner liable for damages to Roberto Reyes aka “AmangBisaya”,
an entertainment artist.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

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

RULING:

No. 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.
 Page 9 of 9

Art. 19. of the Civil Code states that: “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”. When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in
Article 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.

Art. 21. of the Civil Code also 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”.Article 2165 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.

As applied to herein case Mr. Reyes has not shown that Ms. Lim was driven by animosity against
him. The manner by which Ms. Lim asked Mr. Reyes to leave was likewise acceptable and
humane under the circumstances. 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. 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.

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 employees.