Facts:
Respondent 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, was invited by Dr. Violeta Filart 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. At the penthouse, while Mr. Reyes was lined-up at the buffet table, to his great shock, shame
and embarrassment, he was stopped by petitioner Ruby Lim, Executive Secretary. 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. Mr. Reyes tried to explain that he was invited by Dr. Filart but was
completely ignored by her thus adding to his shame and humiliation. Not long after, a Makati policeman
approached and asked him to step out of the hotel.
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. Ruby Lim, for her part,
admitted having asked Mr. Reyes to leave the party but not under the ignominious circumstance painted
by the latter.
After trial on the merits, the court a quo 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
ratiocinated that Mr. Reyes assumed the risk of being thrown out of the party as he was uninvited.
On appeal, the CA reversed the ruling of the trial court as it found more commanding of belief the
testimony of Mr. Reyes and imposed upon Hotel Nikko, Ruby Lim and Dr. Violeta Filart the solidary
obligation to pay Mr. Reyes damages. Thus, the instant petition for review.
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."
Issue:
WON petitioners are liable.
Ruling:
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. 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.
From an in depth review of the evidence, we find more credible the lower court’s findings of fact.
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.
