Nikko Hotel Manila Garden
humiliation.
-versus-
Roberto Reyes
G.R. No. 154259
February 28, 2005
Ms. Ruby Lim’s Statement:
FACTS:
Two versions of the story were
presented in the case:
Mr. Reyes’ Statement:
1. On October 13, 1994, Mr.
Reyes while having coffee at
the lobby of Nikko Hotel was
approached by Dr. Violet
Filart, a friend of several
years.
2. 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 assured to vouch
for him and carried a basket
of fruits, the latter’s gift.
3. When he lined up at the
buffet table, he was in 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.
4. He then argued that he was
invited by Dr. Filart. Dr.
Filart, who was within
hearing distance, however,
completely ignored him thus
adding to his shame and
5. He was asked to leave the
party, like a common
criminal, he was escorted out
of the party by a policeman.
1. Admitted that before she
approached Mr. Reyes and
asked him to leave the party,
she first approached several
people including Dr. Filart’s
sister, Ms. ZenaidaFruto, and
asked them if Dr. Filart did
invite Mr. Reyes as the
captain waiter told Ms. Lim
that he was with Dr. Filart’s
group.
2. 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.
------End of Statements------
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 who was a celebrity.
ISSUES:
WHETHER OR NOT RUBY
LIM ACTED ABUSIVELY IN
ASKING ROBERTO REYES,
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.OF PRESIDENTIAL
DECREE NO. 1564.
RULING:
No. Supreme Court held that
petitioners did not act abusively
in asking Mr. Reyes to leave the
party. Mr. Reyes failed to
establish any proof of ill-motive
on the part of Ms. Lim who did
all the necessary precautions to
ensure that he will not be
humiliated in requesting him to
leave the party.
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.
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.
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.
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.

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.

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