Govt. v.

Frank
Facts: In 1903, Chicago, Illinois. The Insular Government of the Philippine Islands
and Respondent George Frank entered into an Employment Contract, whereby the
latter was to work as a stenographer in the Philippines for a period of two years.
According to their contract, any violation of the terms of the contract shall give rise
the suit for damages. Frank would later violate said terms when he left the service
after 6 months of work and refused to make compliance with the contracts terms.
Therefore, the Government sued Frank for damages amounting to 269.23 dollars,
which amount the plaintiff claimed had been paid to the defendant as expenses
incurred in traveling from Chicago to Manila, and as half salary for the period
consumed in travel. Frank alleges minority as a defense. He contended that under
Illinois State Law, he is considered as an adult, but under the laws of the Philippine
Islands, he is a minor.
Issue: Can George Frank claim minority as a defense to said contract?
Held: No. Applying the principle of Lex Loci Contractus (the law of the land where
the contract is executed), It is no doubt that when the employment contract
between the Insular Government and George Frank was executed in Chicago, the
state laws of Illinois should governed; and that Respondent Frank was considered as
an adult, under Illinois State Law, at the time the contract took effect.

Nikko Hotel Manila Garden, et. al. v. Roberto Amay Bisaya Reyes

Facts: Amay Bisaya filed a complaint for damages against Nikko Hotel and its
Executive Secretary Ruby Lim. Respondent alleged that he was kicked out from Mr.
Mazakazu Tsuruokas natal day celebration by Ruby Lim, claiming that He was not
invited. Bisaya also claimed that the Exec. Secretary shouted at him,
saying:Huwag ka nang kumain, Hindi ka imbitado, bumaba ka na lang. He was
then escorted out by the police. Ruby Lim offered a different testimony. She alleged
that, although admitted having asked Amay Bisaya to leave the premises, she did it
in a soft spoken manner, saying: 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 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. The lower court
dismissed the complaint, giving more credence to Ruby Lims testimony that she
was discreet in asking Respondent Amay Bisaya to leave. The Court of Appeals,
however, reversed the Lower courts decision, believing in the testimony of
Respondent that that Ruby Lim ordered him to leave in a loud voice within hearing
distance of several guest. In this court, Petitioners contended that the doctrine of
Volenti Non Fit Injuria should apply in this case, considering that Respondent was
a gate-crasher.
Issue: 1.) Is the doctrine of Volenti Non Fit Injuria applicable in this case? 2.) Is
Petitioner liable for damages?
Held:
1.) No. The doctrine of Volenti Non Fir Injuria refers to self-inflicted injury or to the
consent of 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. In the case at bar, Even though Responded assumes 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.

2.) No. This court gives more credence to the testimony of Ruby Lim, who was the
executive secretary of Nikko Hotel for at least 20 years, when she politely asked Roberto
Reyes (Amay Bisaya) to leave the premises after finishing his meal. Due to her years as
Executive Secretary, it is assumed that she knows how to handle gate-crashers.