Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs Roberto Reyes (2005) very unlikely for her to make a scene in the party
a scene in the party she was
Facts:
One evening in October 1994, an exclusive party was being
held at the Nikko Hotel Manila Garden. The party was being held
for a prominent Japanese national. The person in charge at the
party was Ruby Lim who was also the executive secretary of the
hotel. Later during the party, she noticed Robert Reyes (popularly
known as Amay Bisaya). Reyes was not on the list of exclusive
guests. Lim first tried to find out who invited Reyes to the party.
When she ascertained that the host celebrant did not invite Reyes,
Lim approached Reyes and told the latter, in a discreet voice, to
finish his food and leave the party. Reyes however made a scene
and began shouting at Lim. Later, a policeman was called to escort
Reyes out of the party.
Reyes then sued Lim and Nikko Hotel Manila Garden for damages.
In his version, he said that he was invited by another party guest,
Dr. Violeta Filart. He said that while he was queuing to get his food,
Lim approached him and ordered him in a loud voice to leave the
party immediately. He told Lim he was invited by Dr. Filart
however when he was calling for Dr. Filart the latter ignored him.
Later, he was escorted out of the party like a common criminal.
The trial court ruled in favor of Lim and Nikko Hotel. However, the
Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Reyes as it ruled that Lim abused
her right and that Reyes deserved to be treated humanely and
fairly. It is true that Lim had the right to ask Reyes to leave the
party but she should have done it respectfully.
Issue: Whether or not Lim acted with abuse of rights.
Decision:
No. The Supreme Court found the version of Lim more
credible. She has been employed by the hotel for more than 20
years at that time. Her job requires her to be polite at all times. It is
managing. That would only make her look bad.
Reyes based his complaint on Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code.
Art. 19 which provides:
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.
was not violated by Lim as it appears that even Reyes testified in
court that when Lim told him to leave, Lim did so very close to him
– so close that they could almost kiss. This only proves that Lim
intended that only Reyes shall hear whatever is it that she’s going
to tell Reyes and exclude other guests from hearing.
Article 21 on the other hand is commonly known as contra bonus
mores:
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.
This article is likewise not violated. Lim, as proven by evidence on
record, did not demean Reyes. They do not know each other
personally. She has no reason to treat him wrongfully especially so
that Reyes himself is a prominent person.
On the other hand, Reyes brought whatever damage he incurred
upon himself. Under the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, by
coming to the party uninvited, Reyes opens himself to the risk of
being turned away, and thus being embarrassed. The injury he
incurred is thus self-inflicted. Evidence even shows that Dr. Filart
herself denied inviting Reyes into the party and that Reyes simply
gate-crashed. Reyes did not even present any supporting evidence
to support any of his claims. Since he brought injury upon himself,
neither Lim nor Nikko Hotel can be held liable for damages.
 Manaloto vs Veloso III (2010)
Facts:
This case is an off-shoot of an unlawful detainer case filed
by petitioners against respondent. It was alleged that they are the
lessors of a residential house located at No. 42 Big Horseshoe
Drive, Horseshoe Village, Quezon City which was leased to
respondent at a monthly rental of P17,000.00. The action was
instituted on the ground of respondent’s failure to pay rentals
from May 23, 1997 to December 22, 1998 despite repeated
demands. [Respondent] denied the non-payment of rentals and
alleged that he made an advance payment of P825,000.00 when he
paid for the repairs done on the leased property.
MeTC ruled in favor of petitioners. RTC reversed the
decision and was affirmed by CA and SC.
While the appeal of the MeTC judgment was pending before
the RTC 88, Respondent Veloso filed before RTC 227 a complaint
for breach of contract and damages against petitioners. The first
cause of action was for damages because the respondent
supposedly suffered embarrassment and humiliation when
petitioners distributed copies of the above-mentioned MeTC
decision in the unlawful detainer case to the homeowners of
Horseshoe Village while respondents appeal was still pending
before the Quezon City RTC-Branch 88. The second cause of action
was for breach of contract since petitioners, as lessors, failed to
make continuing repairs on the subject property to preserve and
keep it tenantable.
Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion praying for dismissal
arguing that respondent had no cause of action against them
because the MeTC decision in the unlawful detainer case was a
matter of public record and its disclosure to the public violated no
law or any legal right of the respondent. Also, it is barred by prior
judgment.
RTC dismissed respondent’s complaint. CA agreed with the
dismissal of 2nd cause however RTC should have proceeded with
the trial on the merits of the first cause of action because such
allegations were necessary to give an overview of the facts leading
to the institution of another case between the parties before the
RTC acting in its original jurisdiction.
Issue: W/N the complaint of respondent stated a cause of action
for damages against petitioners, for the disclosure of a court
decision, which is part of public record, did not cause any legal and
compensable injury to respondent.
Decision:
Petition is partly meritorious.
We find that all three elements exist in the case at bar.
Respondent may not have specifically identified each element, but
it may be sufficiently determined from the allegations in his
complaint.
First, respondent filed the complaint to protect his good character,
name, and reputation. Every man has a right to build, keep, and be
favored with a good name. This right is protected by law with the
recognition of slander and libel as actionable wrongs, whether as
criminal offenses or tortuous conduct.[23]
Second, petitioners are obliged to respect respondents good name
even though they are opposing parties in the unlawful detainer
case. As Article 19 of the Civil Code requires, [e]very 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. A violation of such principle constitutes an abuse of
rights, a tortuous conduct.
Petitioners are also expected to respect respondents dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind under Article 26 of the Civil
Code, which provides:
ART. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality,
privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The
following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages,
prevention and other relief:
 petitioners and respondent, and the MeTC decision against
(1) Prying into the privacy of anothers residence; respondent was then still pending appeal before the RTC-Branch
88, rendering suspect petitioners intentions for distributing copies
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family of said MeTC decision to non-parties in the case. While petitioners
relations of another; were free to copy and distribute such copies of the MeTC judgment
to the public, the question is whether they did so with the intent of
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his humiliating respondent and destroying the latters good name and
friends; reputation in the community.

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his

religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect,
or other personal condition.

Thus, Article 2219(10) of the Civil Code allows the recovery of

moral damages for acts and actions referred to in Article 26,
among other provisions, of the Civil Code.

And third, respondent alleged that the distribution by petitioners

to Horseshoe Village homeowners of copies of the MeTC decision
in the unlawful detainer case, which was adverse to respondent
and still on appeal before the RTC-Branch 88, had no apparent
lawful or just purpose except to humiliate respondent or assault
his character. As a result, respondent suffered damages becoming
the talk of the town and being deprived of his political career.

Petitioners reason that respondent has no cause of action against

them since the MeTC decision in the unlawful detainer case was
part of public records.

It is already settled that the public has a right to see and copy
judicial records and documents.[28] However, this is not a case of
the public seeking and being denied access to judicial records and
documents. The controversy is rooted in the dissemination by
petitioners of the MeTC judgment against respondent to
Horseshoe Village homeowners, who were not involved at all in
the unlawful detainer case, thus, purportedly affecting negatively
respondents good name and reputation among said homeowners.
The unlawful detainer case was a private dispute between
 UST vs Sanchez (2010)
Facts:
A Complaint for Damages filed by respondent Danes B. Sanchez
(respondent) against the University of Santo Tomas (UST) and its
Board of Directors, the Dean and the Assistant Dean of the UST
College of Nursing, and the University Registrar for their alleged
unjustified refusal to release the respondents Transcript of
Records (ToR).
In his Complaint, respondent alleged that he graduated from UST
on April 2, 2002 with a Bachelors Degree of Science in Nursing. He
was included in the list of candidates for graduation and attended
graduation ceremonies. Respondent sought to secure a copy of his
ToR with the UST Registrars Office, paid the required fees, but was
only given a Certificate of Graduation by the Registrar. Despite
repeated attempts by the respondent to secure a copy of his ToR,
and submission of his class cards as proof of his enrolment, UST
refused to release his records, making it impossible for him to take
the nursing board examinations, and depriving him of the
opportunity to make a living. The respondent prayed that the RTC
order UST to release his ToR and hold UST liable for actual, moral,
and exemplary damages, attorneys fees, and the costs of suit.
Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss where they claimed that they
refused to release respondents ToR because he was not a
registered student, since he had not been enrolled in the university
for the last three semesters. They claimed that the respondents
graduation, attendance in classes, and taking/passing of
examinations were immaterial because he ceased to be a student
when he failed to enroll during the second semester of school year
2000-2001.
Petitioners then filed a Supplement to their Motion to Dismiss,
alleging that respondent sought administrative recourse before
the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) through a letter-
complaint. Petitioners claimed that the CHED had primary
jurisdiction to resolve matters pertaining to school controversies.
They also sought the dismissal of the case on the ground that the
complaint failed to state a cause of action, as paragraph 10 of the
complaint admitted that:
10. On several occasions, [respondent] went to see the [petitioners] to get his ToR,
but all of these were futile for he was not even entertained at the Office of the
Dean. Worst, he was treated like a criminal forcing him to admit the fact that he
did not enroll for the last three (3) semesters of his schooling. [Petitioner] Dean
tried to persuade the [respondent] to give the original copies of the Class Cards
which he has in his possession. These are the only [bits of] evidence on hand to
prove that he was in fact officially enrolled. [Respondent] did not give the said
class cards and instead gave photo copies to the [Petitioner] Dean. The Office of
the Dean of Nursing of [petitioner] UST became very strict in receiving documents
from the [respondent]. [They have] to be scrutinized first before the same are
received. Receiving, as [respondent] believes, is merely a ministerial function [of]
the [petitioners] and the documents presented for receiving need not be
scrutinized especially so when x x x they are not illegal. Copies of the class cards
are hereto attached as F hereof.
RTC: Denied the MTD of UST.
CA: Affirmed the denial of the MTD of UST
Issue: W/N the complaint filed by respondent Sanchez failed to
state a cause of action since he admitted that he was not enrolled
in UST in the last three semesters prior to graduation.
Decision
The petition is denied for lack of merit.
The Complaint states a cause of action. Under Rule 16 a
motion to dismiss may be made on the ground that the pleading
asserting the claim states no cause of action. To clarify the
essential test required to sustain dismissal on this ground, we have
explained that the test of the sufficiency of the facts found in a
petition, to constitute a cause of action, is whether admitting the
facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the
same in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Stated
otherwise, a complaint is said to assert a sufficient cause of action
if, admitting what appears solely on its face to be correct, the
plaintiff would be entitled to the relief prayed for.
The Complaint makes the following essential allegations:
that petitioners unjustifiably refused to release respondents ToR
despite his having obtained a degree from UST; that petitioners
claim that respondent was not officially enrolled is untrue; that as
a result of petitioners unlawful actions, respondent has not been
able to take the nursing board exams since 2002; that petitioners
actions violated Articles 19-21 of the Civil Code; and that
petitioners should be ordered to release respondents ToR and
held liable for P400,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as
exemplary damages, P50,000.00 as attorneys fees and costs of suit,
and P15,000.00 as actual damages. Clearly, assuming that the facts
alleged in the Complaint are true, the RTC would be able to render
a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in the Complaint.
Petitioners argue that paragraph 10 of the Complaint
contains an admission that respondent was not officially enrolled
at UST. Said paragraph reads:
“Xxxxxxx”
This statement certainly does not support petitioners claim
that respondent admitted that he was not enrolled. On the
contrary, any allegation concerning the use of force or intimidation
by petitioners, if substantiated, can only serve to strengthen
respondents complaint for damages.
We fully agree with the RTCs finding that a resolution of the
case requires the presentation of evidence during trial. Based on
the parties allegations, the issues in this case are far from settled.
Was respondent enrolled or not? Was his degree obtained
fraudulently? If so, why was he permitted by the petitioners to
graduate? Was there fault or negligence on the part of any of the
parties? Clearly, these are factual matters which can be best
ventilated in a full-blown proceeding before the trial court.