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.

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Same; Same; Same; Appeals; Where the trial court and the
appellate court reached divergent and irreconcilable conclusions
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes
concerning the same facts and evidence of the case, the Supreme
*
Court is left without choice but to use its latent power to review
G.R. No. 154259. February 28, 2005. such findings of facts.—The general rule is that we are not a trier
of facts as our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising
NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN and RUBY LIM, errors of law. One of the exceptions to this general rule, however,
petitioners, vs. ROBERTO REYES, a.k.a. “AMAY obtains herein as the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary
BISAYA,” respondent. 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
Actions; Human Relations; Torts and Damages; Doctrine of
other hand, held that Ms. Lim is liable for damages as she
Volenti Non Fit Injuria; The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (“to
needlessly embarrassed Mr. Reyes by telling him not to finish his
which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury”) refers to
food and to leave the place within hearing distance of the other
a self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which precludes
guests. Both courts, however, were in agreement that it was Dr.
the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily
Filart’s invitation that brought Mr. Reyes to the party.
exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so.—
Petitioners Lim and Hotel Nikko contend that pursuant to the Same; Same; Same; Evidence; It is a basic rule in civil cases
doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, they cannot be made liable for that he who alleges proves.—Another problem with Mr. Reyes’s
damages as respondent Reyes assumed the risk of being asked to version of the story is that it is unsupported. It is a basic rule in
leave (and being embarrassed and humiliated in the process) as civil cases that he who alleges proves. Mr. Reyes, however, had
he was a “gate-crasher.” The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (“to not presented any witness to back his story up. All his witnesses
which a —Danny Rodinas, Pepito Guerrero and Alexander Silva—proved
only that it was Dr. Filart who invited him to the party.

_______________ Same; Same; Same; Party Gatecrashers; A person who did not
abuse her right in asking a person to leave a party to which he was
* SECOND DIVISION. not invited cannot be made to pay for damages under Articles 19
and 21 of the Civil Code.—Ms. Lim, not having abused her right
to ask Mr. Reyes to leave the party to which he was not invited,
533 cannot be made liable to pay for damages under Articles 19 and
21 of the Civil

534
VOL. 452, FEBRUARY 28, 2005 533

Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
person assents is not esteemed in law as injury”) refers to self-
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes
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.
Code. Necessarily, neither can her employer, Hotel Nikko, be held VOL. 452, FEBRUARY 28, 2005 535
liable as its liability springs from that of its employee.
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes
Same; Same; Same; Principle of Abuse of Rights; Article 19 of
the Civil Code, known to contain what is commonly referred to as
Same; Same; Same; Same; A complaint based on Articles 19
the principle of abuse of rights, is not a panacea for all human
and 21 of the Civil Code must necessarily fail if it has nothing to
hurts and social grievances, the object of the article being to set
recommend it but innuendos and conjectures.—As applied to
certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise
herein case and as earlier discussed, Mr. Reyes has not shown
of one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s duties.—Article
that Ms. Lim was driven by animosity against him. These two
19, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the
people did not know each other personally before the evening of
principle of abuse of rights, is not a panacea for all human hurts
13 October 1994, thus, Mr. Reyes had nothing to offer for an
and social grievances. Article 19 states: Art. 19. Every person
explanation for Ms. Lim’s alleged abusive conduct except the
must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his
statement that Ms. Lim, being “single at 44 years old,” had a
duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
“very strong bias and prejudice against (Mr. Reyes) possibly
honesty and good faith. Elsewhere, we explained that when “a
influenced by her associates in her work at the hotel with foreign
right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the
businessmen.” The lameness of this argument need not be
norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a
belabored. Suffice it to say that a complaint based on Articles 19
legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must
and 21 of the Civil Code must necessarily fail if it has nothing to
be responsible.” The object of this article, therefore, is to set
recommend it but innuendos and conjectures.
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 Same; Same; Same; Same; Bad judgment which, if done with
standards are the following: act with justice, give everyone his good intentions, cannot amount to bad faith.—The manner by
due and observe honesty and good faith. Its antithesis, which Ms. Lim asked Mr. Reyes to leave was likewise acceptable
necessarily, is any act evincing bad faith or intent to injure. Its and humane under the circumstances. In this regard, we cannot
elements are the following: (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2) put our imprimatur on the appellate court’s declaration that Ms.
which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of Lim’s act of personally approaching Mr. Reyes (without first
prejudicing or injuring another. When Article 19 is violated, an verifying from Mrs. Filart if indeed she invited Mr. Reyes) gave
action for damages is proper under Articles 20 or 21 of the Civil rise to a cause of action “predicated upon mere rudeness or lack of
Code. consideration of one person, which calls not only protection of
human dignity but respect of such dignity.” Without proof of any
Same; Same; Same; Same; A common theme runs through
ill-motive on her part, Ms. Lim’s act of by-passing Mrs. Filart
Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act complained of must be
cannot amount to abusive conduct especially because she did
intentional.—Article 20 pertains to damages arising from a
inquire from Mrs. Filart’s companion who told her that Mrs.
violation of law which does not obtain herein as Ms. Lim was
Filart did not invite Mr. Reyes. If at all, Ms. Lim is guilty only of
perfectly within her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave. Article 21, on
bad judgment which, if done with good intentions, cannot amount
the other hand, states: Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes
to bad faith.
loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and
damage. Article 21 refers to acts contra bonus mores and has the resolution of the Court of Appeals.
following elements: (1) There is an act which is legal; (2) but
which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
policy; and (3) it is done with intent to injure. A common theme Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for
runs through Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act complained petitioners.
of must be intentional. Vicente D. Millora for respondent Amay Bisaya.

535 536
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 452, FEBRUARY 28, 2005 537
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes
10

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: which Mr. Reyes sat with the party of Dr. Filart. After a
couple of hours, when the buffet dinner was ready, Mr.
In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners
1 Nikko Reyes lined-up at the buffet table but, to his great shock,
Hotel Manila Garden 2 (Hotel Nikko) and Ruby Lim shame and embarrassment, he was stopped by petitioner
assail the Decision of the Court of Appeals3 dated 26 herein, Ruby Lim, who claimed11 to speak for Hotel Nikko
November 2001 reversing the Decision of the Regional as Executive Secretary thereof. In a loud voice and within
Trial Court (RTC)
4 of Quezon City, Branch 104, as well as the presence and hearing of the other guests who were
the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 09 July 2002 making a queue at the buffet table, Ruby Lim told him to
which denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. leave the party (“huwag ka nang 12 kumain, hindi ka
The cause of action before the trial court was one for imbitado, bumaba ka na lang”). Mr. 13Reyes tried to
damages brought under the human relations provisions of explain that he was invited by Dr. Filart. Dr. Filart, who
the New Civil Code. Plaintiff thereat (respondent herein) was within hearing distance, however, completely ignored
14
Roberto Reyes, more popularly known by the screen name him thus adding to his shame and humiliation. Not long
“Amay Bisaya,” alleged that at around 6:00 o’clock in the after, while he was still recovering from the traumatic
evening of 13 October 1994, 5 while he was having coffee at experience, a Makati policeman
15 approached and asked him
the lobby of Hotel Nikko, he was spotted by his friend of to step out of the hotel. Like a common criminal,
16 he was
several
6 years, Dr. Violeta Filart, who then approached escorted out of the party by the policeman. Claiming
him. Mrs. Filart invited him to join her in a party at the damages, Mr. Reyes asked for One Million Pesos actual
hotel’s penthouse in celebration of the natal 7 day of the damages, One Million Pesos moral and/or exemplary
hotel’s manager, Mr. Masakazu Tsuruoka. Mr. Reyes damages
17 and Two Hundred Thousand Pesos attorney’s
asked if8 she could vouch for him for which she replied: “of fees.
course.” Mr. Reyes then went up with the party of Dr. Ruby Lim, for her part, admitted having asked Mr.
Filart carrying the basket9 of fruits which was the latter’s Reyes to leave the party but not under the ignominious
present for the celebrant. At the penthouse, they first had circumstance painted by the latter. Ms. Lim narrated that
their picture taken with the celebrant after she was the Hotel’s 18 Executive Secretary for the past
twenty (20) years. One of her functions included
_______________ organizing the birthday party
19 of the hotel’s former General
Manager, Mr. Tsuruoka. The year 1994 was no different.
1 Now Dusit Hotel Nikko.
For Mr. Tsuruoka’s party,
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. 10 Id., at pp. 13 & 16.
4 Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria with Justices 11 COMPLAINT, RTC Record, p. 2.
Teodoro P. Regino and Rebecca de Guia-Salvador concurring (Rollo, pp. 12 Supra, note 5 at p. 17.
59-60). 13 Supra, note 11.
5 TSN, 08 March 1995, p. 8. 14 Ibid.
6 Id., at p. 10. 15 Id., at pp. 2-3.
7 Ibid. 16 Id., at p. 3.
8 Id., at p. 11. 17 Ibid.
9 Id., at p. 13. 18 TSN, 27 July 1996, p. 9.
19 Id., at p. 10.
537
 538 29 Ibid.
30 Petition, Rollo, p. 18.

538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 539

Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes
VOL. 452, FEBRUARY 28, 2005 539
Ms. Lim generated an 20exclusive guest list and extended
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes
invitations accordingly. The guest list was limited to
approximately sixty (60) of Mr. Tsuruoka’s closest friends 31

already helping himself to the food, she decided to wait.

and some hotel employees
21 and that Mr. Reyes was not
When Mr. Reyes went to a corner and started to eat, Ms.
one of those invited. At the party, Ms. Lim first 22 noticed
Lim approached him and said: “alam ninyo, hindi ho kayo
Mr. Reyes at the bar counter ordering a drink. Mindful of
dapat nandito. Pero total nakakuha na ho kayo ng pagkain,
Mr. Tsuruoka’s wishes to keep the party intimate, Ms. Lim
ubusin na lang ninyo at pagkatapos kung pwede lang po
approached Mr. Boy Miller, the “captain waiter,” to inquire
23
32

umalis na kayo.” She then turned around trusting that

as to the presence of Mr. Reyes who was not invited. Mr.
Mr. Reyes would show enough decency to leave, but to her
Miller 24replied that he saw Mr. Reyes with the group of Dr.
surprise, he began screaming and making
33 a big scene, and
Filart. As Dr. Filart was engaged in conversation with
even threatened to dump food on her.
another guest and as Ms. Lim did not want to interrupt,
Dr. Violeta Filart, the third defendant in the complaint
she inquired instead from the sister of Dr. Filart, Ms.
before the lower court, also gave her version of the story to
34
Zenaida Fruto,25 who told her that Dr. Filart did not invite
the effect that she never invited Mr. Reyes to the party.
Mr. Reyes. Ms. Lim then requested Ms. Fruto to tell 26 Mr.
According to her, it was Mr. Reyes who volunteered to
Reyes to leave the party as he was not invited. Mr.
carry the basket of fruits intended for the celebrant as he
Reyes, however, lingered prompting Ms. Lim to inquire
was likewise going to take 35the elevator, not to the
from Ms.
27 Fruto who said that Mr. Reyes did not want to penthouse but to Altitude 49. When they reached the
leave. When Ms. Lim turned around, she saw Mr. Reyes penthouse, she reminded Mr. Reyes to go 36down as he was
conversing 28with a Captain Batung whom she later not properly dressed and was not invited. All the while,
approached. Believing that Captain Batung and Mr.
she thought that Mr. Reyes already left the place, but
37 she
Reyes knew each other, Ms. Lim requested from him the later saw him at the bar talking to Col. Batung. Then 38
same favor from Ms. Fruto, i.e., for Captain Batung29to tell
there was a commotion 39and she saw Mr. Reyes shouting.
Mr. Reyes to leave the party as he was not invited. Still,
She ignored Mr. Reyes. She was embarrassed and 40 did not
Mr. Reyes lingered. When Ms. Lim spotted Mr. Reyes by want the celebrant to think that she invited him.
the buffet table, she decided to speak to him herself as 30

there were no other guests in the immediate vicinity.

_______________
However, as Mr. Reyes was
31 Supra, note 29 at pp. 41-42.
_______________ 32 Id., at pp. 42-43.
33 Answer, pp. 32-33, RTC Records; RTC Decision, Rollo, p. 62; TSN, 27
20 Id., at pp. 12-13, 15.
July 1995, pp. 43-46.
21 Id., at pp. 15-17, 25.
34 TSN, 05 November 1997, p. 15.
22 Id., at p. 25.
35 Violeta Filart’s “ANSWER WITH COMPULSORY
23 Id., at p. 27.
COUNTERCLAIM,” RTC Records, p. 21.
24 Ibid.
36 Supra, note 34 at p. 17.
25 Id., at pp. 31-32.
37 Or “Captain Batung” from the testimony of Ruby Lim; Id., at p. 18.
26 Id., at p. 33.
38 Id., at p. 19.
27 Id., at p. 37.
39 Ibid.
28 Id., at pp. 38-39.
40 Ibid.
 540 42 RTC Records, p. 342.
43 CA Rollo, p. 205.

540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 541

Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes
VOL. 452, FEBRUARY 28, 2005 541
After trial41on the merits, the court a quo dismissed the
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes
complaint, giving more credence to the testimony of Ms.
Lim that she was discreet in asking Mr. Reyes to leave the
The Court of Appeals likewise ruled that the actuation of
party. The trial court likewise ratiocinated that Mr. Reyes
Ms. Lim in approaching several people to inquire into the
assumed the risk of being thrown out of the party as he
presence of Mr. Reyes exposed the latter to ridicule and
was uninvited:
was uncalled for as she should have approached Dr. Filart
Plaintiff had no business being at the party because he was not a first and both of them should have talked to Mr. Reyes in
guest of Mr. Tsuruoka, the birthday celebrant. He assumed the private:
risk of being asked to leave for attending a party to which he was
not invited by the host. Damages are pecuniary consequences Said acts of appellee Lim are uncalled for. What should have been
which the law imposes for the breach of some duty or the violation done by appellee Lim was to approach appellee Mrs. Filart and
of some right. Thus, no recovery can be had against defendants together they should have told appellant Reyes in private that
Nikko Hotel and Ruby Lim because he himself was at fault the latter should leave the party as the celebrant only wanted
(Garciano v. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 436). He knew that it close friends around. It is necessary that Mrs. Filart be the one to
was not the party of defendant Violeta Filart even if she allowed approach appellant because it was she who invited appellant in
him to join her and took responsibility for his attendance at the that occasion. Were it not for Mrs. Filart’s invitation, appellant
party. His action against defendants Nikko Hotel and Ruby Lim could not have suffered such humiliation. For that, appellee Filart
42

must therefore fail. is equally liable.

...
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the The acts of [appellee] Lim are causes of action which are
trial court as it found more commanding of belief the predicated upon mere rudeness or lack of consideration of one
testimony of Mr. Reyes that Ms. Lim ordered him to leave person, which calls not only protection of human dignity but
in a loud voice within hearing distance of several guests: respect of such dignity. Under Article 20 of the Civil Code, every
person who violates this duty becomes liable for damages,
In putting appellant in a very embarrassing situation, telling him especially if said acts were attended by malice or bad faith. Bad
that he should not finish his food and to leave the place within the faith does not simply connote bad judgment or simple negligence.
hearing distance of other guests is an act which is contrary to It imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and
morals, good customs . . ., for which appellees should compensate conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of a known duty to some
the appellant for the damage suffered by the latter as a motive or interest or ill-will that partakes of
44 the nature of fraud

consequence therefore (Art. 21, New Civil Code). The liability (Cojuangco, Jr. v. CA, et al., 309 SCRA 603).
arises from the acts which are in themselves legal or not
prohibited, but contrary to morals or good customs. Conversely, Consequently, the Court of Appeals imposed upon Hotel
even in the exercise of a formal right, [one] cannot with impunity Nikko, Ruby Lim and Dr. Violeta Filart the solidary
intentionally cause damage
43 to another in a manner contrary to obligation to pay Mr. Reyes (1) exemplary damages in the
morals or good customs. 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
45 in the amount of
Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000). On motion for
41 Dismissed as well were the counterclaims filed by then defendants reconsideration, the Court of Appeals affirmed its earlier
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden, Ruby Lim and Violeta Filart, RTC Records, decision as the argument raised in
p. 347.
_______________ _______________

44 Id., at pp. 208-209. 46 CA Rollo, pp. 239-240.

45 Id., at p. 238.
543
542

VOL. 452, FEBRUARY 28, 2005 543

542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes
Petitioners Lim and Hotel Nikko contend that pursuant
the motion had “been amply discussed 46and passed upon in to the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, they cannot be
the decision sought to be reconsidered.” made liable for damages as respondent Reyes assumed the
Thus, the instant petition for review. Hotel Nikko and risk of being asked to leave (and being embarrassed and
Ruby Lim contend that the Court of Appeals seriously humiliated in the process) as he was a “gate-crasher.”
erred in— The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria (“to47 which a person
assents is not esteemed
48 in law as injury” ) refers49 to self-
I. inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which
precludes the recovery of damages by one who has
. . . NOT APPLYING THE DOCTRINE OF VOLENTI NON FIT
knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even
INJURIA CONSIDERING THAT BY ITS OWN FINDINGS, 50

if he is not negligent in doing so. As formulated by

AMAY BISAYA WAS A GATE-CRASHER
petitioners, however, this doctrine does not find application
II. to the case at bar because even if respondent Reyes
assumed the risk of being asked to leave the party,
. . . HOLDING HOTEL NIKKO AND RUBY LIM JOINTLY petitioners, under Articles 19 and 21 of the New Civil Code,
AND SEVERALLY LIABLE WITH DR. FILART FOR DAMAGES were still under obligation to treat him fairly in order not
SINCE BY ITS OWN RULING, AMAY BISAYA “COULD NOT to expose him to unnecessary ridicule and shame.
HAVE SUFFERED SUCH HUMILIATION,” “WERE IT NOT Thus, the threshold issue is whether or not Ruby Lim
FOR DR. FILART’S INVITATION” acted abusively in asking Roberto Reyes, a.k.a. “Amay
Bisaya,” to leave the party where he was not invited by the
III.
celebrant thereof thereby becoming liable under Articles 19
. . . DEPARTING FROM THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE and 21 of the Civil Code. Parenthetically, and if Ruby Lim
TRIAL COURT AS REGARDS THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT were so liable, whether or not Hotel Nikko, as her
ALLEGEDLY CAUSED THE HUMILIATION OF AMAY BISAYA employer, is solidarily liable with her.
As the trial court and the appellate court reached
IV. divergent and irreconcilable conclusions concerning the
same facts and evidence of the case, this Court is left
. . . IN CONCLUDING THAT AMAY BISAYA WAS TREATED
without choice but to use its latent power to review such
UNJUSTLY BECAUSE OF HIS POVERTY, CONSIDERING
findings of facts. Indeed, the general rule is that we are not
THAT THIS WAS NEVER AN ISSUE AND NO EVIDENCE WAS
a trier of facts as our juris-
PRESENTED IN THIS REGARD

V. _______________

. . . IN FAILING TO PASS UPON THE ISSUE ON THE 47 E.L. Pineda, Torts and Damages Annotated, p. 52 (2004 ed.).
DEFECTS OF THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF, THEREBY 48 Garciano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96126, 10 August 1992, 212
DEPARTING FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE SCRA 436, 440.
OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS 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. 545

544
VOL. 452, FEBRUARY 28, 2005 545

544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes

Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes

mer boss. To unnecessarily call attention to the presence of
51
Mr. Reyes would certainly reflect badly on Ms. Lim’s
diction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law.
ability to follow the instructions of the celebrant to invite
One of the exceptions to this general rule, however, obtains
only his close friends and some of the hotel’s personnel.
herein as the findings of the52 Court of Appeals are contrary
Mr. Reyes, upon whom the burden rests to prove that
to those of the trial court. The lower court ruled that Ms.
indeed Ms. Lim loudly and rudely ordered him to leave,
Lim did not abuse her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave the
could not offer any satisfactory explanation why Ms. Lim
party as she talked to him politely and discreetly. The
would do that and risk ruining a formal and intimate
appellate court, on the other hand, held that Ms. Lim is
affair. On the contrary, Mr. Reyes, on cross-examination,
liable for damages as she needlessly embarrassed Mr.
had unwittingly sealed his fate by admitting that when Ms.
Reyes by telling him not to finish his food and to leave the
Lim talked to him, she was very close. Close enough for
place within hearing distance of the other guests. Both
him to kiss:
courts, however, were in agreement that it was Dr. Filart’s
invitation that brought Mr. Reyes to the party. Q: And, Mr. Reyes, you testified that Miss Lim approached
The consequential question then is: Which version is you while you were at the buffet table? How close was
credible? she when she approached you?
From an in depth review of the evidence, we find more
A: Very close because we nearly kissed each other.
credible the lower court’s findings of fact.
First, let us put things in the proper perspective. Q: And yet, she shouted for you to go down? She was that
We 53are dealing with a formal party in a posh, five-star close and she shouted?
hotel, for-invitation-only, thrown for the hotel’s former A: Yes. She said, “wag kang kumain, hindi ka imbitado
Manager, a Japanese national. Then came 54 a person who dito, bumaba ka na lang.”
was clearly uninvited (by the celebrant) and who could not Q: So, you are testifying that she did this in a loud voice?
just disappear into the crowd as his face is known by many,
being an actor. While he was already spotted by the ...
55

organizer of the party, Ms. Lim, the very person who A: Yes. If it is not loud, it will not be heard by many.
generated the guest list, it did not yet appear that the
celebrant was aware of his presence. Ms. Lim, mindful of In the absence of any proof of motive on the part of Ms. Lim
the celebrant’s instruction to keep the party intimate, to humiliate Mr. Reyes and expose him to ridicule and
would naturally want to get rid of the “gate-crasher” in the shame, it is highly unlikely that she would shout at him
most hush-hush manner in order not to call attention to a from a very close distance. Ms. Lim having been in the
glitch in an otherwise seamless affair and, in the process, hotel business for twenty years wherein being polite and
risk the displeasure of the celebrant, her for- 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—
51 Floro v. Llenado, G.R. No. 75723, 02 June 1995, 244 SCRA 713, 720.
52 Ibid. Considering the closeness of defendant Lim to plaintiff when the
53 TSN, 22 May 1999, p. 11. request for the latter to leave the party was made such that they
54 Admitted by Mr. Reyes, see TSN, 15 March 1995, p. 10. nearly kissed each other, the request was meant to be heard by
him
_______________ 58 Article 2180, Civil Code.
59 Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
55 TSN, 15 March 1995, p. 20.
81262, 25 August 1989, 176 SCRA 779, 783.

546
547

546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 452, FEBRUARY 28, 2005 547
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes
only and there could have been no intention on her part to cause 60

embarrassment to him. It was plaintiff’s reaction to the request sible.” The object of this article, therefore, is to set certain
that must have made the other guests aware of what transpired standards which must be observed not only in the exercise 61

between them. . . of one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s duties.
Had plaintiff simply left the party
56 as requested, there was no These standards are the following: act with justice, 62give
need for the police to take him out. everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith. Its
antithesis, necessarily, is any act evincing bad faith or
Moreover, another problem with Mr. Reyes’s version of the intent to injure. Its elements are the following: (1) There is
story is that it is unsupported. It is a basic rule in civil a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3)63

cases that he who alleges proves. Mr. Reyes, however, had for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
not presented any witness to back his story up. All his When Article 19 is violated, an action for damages is proper
witnesses—Danny Rodinas, Pepito Guerrero and under Articles 20 or 21 of the Civil Code. Article 64 20
Alexander Silva—proved57 only that it was Dr. Filart who pertains to damages arising from a violation of law which
invited him to the party. does not obtain herein as Ms. Lim was perfectly within her
Ms. Lim, not having abused her right to ask Mr. Reyes right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave. Article 21, on the other
to leave the party to which he was not invited, cannot be hand, states:
made liable to pay for damages under Articles 19 and 21 of
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another
the Civil Code. Necessarily, neither can her employer,
in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public
Hotel Nikko, be held 58 liable as its liability springs from
policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
that of its employee. 65
Article 19, known to contain what 59is commonly referred Article 21 refers to acts contra bonus mores and has the
to as the principle of abuse of rights, is not a panacea for following elements: (1) There is an act which is legal; (2)
all human hurts and social grievances. Article 19 states: but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, 66

or public policy; and (3) it is done with intent to injure.67

Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
A common theme runs through Articles 19 and68 21, and
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due,
that is, the act complained of must be intentional.
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 60 Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88694, 11

legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer January 1993, 217 SCRA 16, 25.

must be respon- 61 Supra, note 59 at pp. 783-784.

62 Ibid.
63 Supra, note 62.
_______________
64 Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently
56 RTC Records, pp. 340-341. causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. See
57 Danny Rodinas and Pepito Guerrero (TSN, 18 May 1995), Alexander Globe Mackay, supra, note 61 at p. 784.
Silva (TSN, 21 June 1995). 65 Civil Code.
 66 Supra, note 60 at p. 25. when Mr. Reyes was being escorted out of the penthouse, she lifted nary a
67 Civil Code. finger to his rescue.
68 Ibid.
549
548

VOL. 452, FEBRUARY 28, 2005 549

548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes
Not being liable for both actual and moral damages,
As applied to herein case and as earlier discussed, Mr. neither can petitioners Lim and Hotel
72 Nikko be made
Reyes has not shown that Ms. Lim was driven by answerable for exemplary damages especially for the
animosity against him. These two people did not know each reason stated by the Court of Appeals. The Court of
other personally before the evening of 13 October 1994, Appeals held—
thus, Mr. Reyes had nothing to offer for an explanation for
Ms. Lim’s alleged abusive conduct except the statement Not a few of the rich people treat the poor with contempt because
that Ms. Lim, being “single at 44 years old,” had a “very of the latter’s lowly station in life. This has to be limited
strong bias and prejudice against (Mr. Reyes) possibly somewhere. In a democracy, such a limit must be established.
Social equality is not sought by the legal provisions under
influenced by her associates
69 in her work at the hotel with
consideration, but due regard for decency and propriety (Code
foreign businessmen.” The lameness of this argument
Commission, pp. 33-34). And by way of example or correction for
need not be belabored. Suffice it to say that a complaint
public good and to avert further commission of 73such acts,
based on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code must
exemplary damages should be imposed upon appellees.
necessarily fail if it has nothing to recommend it but
innuendos and conjectures. The fundamental fallacy in the above-quoted findings is
Parenthetically, the manner by which Ms. Lim asked that it runs counter with the very facts of the case and the
Mr. Reyes to leave was likewise acceptable and humane evidence on hand. It is not disputed that at the time of the
under the circumstances. In this regard, we cannot put our incident in question, Mr. Reyes was “an actor of long
imprimatur on the appellate court’s declaration that Ms. standing; a co-host of a radio program over DZRH; a Board
Lim’s act of personally approaching Mr. Reyes (without Member of the Music Singer Composer (MUSICO) chaired
first verifying from Mrs. Filart if indeed she invited Mr. by popular singer Imelda Papin; a showbiz Coordinator of
Reyes) gave rise to a cause of action “predicated upon mere Citizen Crime Watch; and 1992 official candidate of the
rudeness or lack of consideration of one person, which calls KBL Party for Governor of Bohol; and an awardee of a
not only70protection of human dignity but respect of such number of74 humanitarian organizations of the
dignity.” Without proof of any ill-motive on her part, Ms. Philippines.” During his direct examination
75 on rebuttal,
Lim’s act of by-passing Mrs. Filart cannot amount to Mr. Reyes stressed that he had income and nowhere did
abusive conduct especially because she did inquire from he say otherwise. On the other hand, the records are bereft
Mrs. Filart’s companion71 who told her that Mrs. Filart did of any information as to the social and economic standing of
not invite Mr. Reyes. If at all, Ms. Lim is guilty only of petitioner Ruby Lim. Consequently, the conclusion reached
bad judgment which, if done with good intentions, cannot by the appellate court cannot withstand scrutiny as it is
amount to bad faith. without basis.
All told, and as far as Ms. Lim and Hotel Nikko are
_______________ concerned, any damage which Mr. Reyes might have
suffered
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 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. © Copyright 2025 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
7-8.
75 TSN, 29 October 1998, p. 11.

550

550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes

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 (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr.

and Tinga, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and

set aside.

Notes.—It must be remembered that the exercise of a

right ends when the right disappears, and it disappears
when it is abused especially to the prejudice of others.
(Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Wong, 359
SCRA 608 [2001])
Entrenched is the rule that bad faith does not simply
connote bad judgment or negligence—it imputes a
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious
doing of a wrong, a breach of sworn duty through some
motive or intent or ill will, and partakes of the nature of
fraud. (Andrade vs. Court of Appeals, 371 SCRA 555 [2001])

——o0o——