OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS Doctrine: Negligence

G.R. No. 189998

MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL AND RESORT, INC v. HARPER
Date: August 29, 2012

Ponente: BERSAMIN
MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL AND RESORT, INC., petitioner ELLEN JOHANNE HARPER,
JONATHAN CHRISTOPHER
HARPER, and RIGOBERTO
GILLERA, respondents
Doctrine of the case:
Negligence – Article 2176 0f the New Civil Code provides “Whoever by act or omission causes damage
to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.”

The hotel business is imbued with public interest. Hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging
for their guests but also security to their persons and belongings to their guest. The twin duty
constitutes the essence of the business (Arts 2000-2001 New Civil Code).

Hotel owner is liable for civil damages to surviving heirs of hotel guest whom strangers murder inside
his hotel room.
FACTS
November 1999, Christian Harper came to Manila on a business trip as the Business Development
Manager for Asia of ALSTOM Power Norway AS, an engineering firm with worldwide operations. He
checked in at the Shangri-La Hotel. He was due to check out on November 6, 1999. In the early morning
of that date, however, he was murdered inside his hotel room by still unidentified malefactors.

It appears that at around 11:00 am of November 6, 1999, a Caucasian male entered the Alexis Jewelry
Store in Glorietta and expressed interest in purchasing a Cartier lady's watch valued at P320,000.00 with
the use of two Mastercard credit cards and an American Express credit card issued in the name of Harper.
But the customer's difficulty in answering the queries phoned in by a credit card representative sufficiently
aroused the suspicion of saleslady Anna Liza Lumba (Lumba), who asked for the customer's passport
upon suggestion of the credit card representative to put the credit cards on hold. Probably sensing trouble
for himself, the customer hurriedly left the store, and left the three credit cards and the passport behind.

In the meanwhile, Harper's family in Norway must have called him at his hotel room to inform him about
the attempt to use his American Express card. Not getting any response from the room, his family
requested Raymond Alarcon, the Duty Manager of the Shangri-La Hotel, to check on Harper's room.
Alarcon and security personnel went to Room 1428 at 11:27 a.m., and were shocked to discover Harper's
lifeless body on the bed.

Respondents commenced this suit in the RTC to recover various damages from petitioner pertinently
alleging:

“The murderer succeeded to trespass into the area of the hotel's private rooms area and into the room
of the said deceased on account of the hotel's gross negligence in providing the most basic security
system of its guests, the lack of which owing to the acts or omissions of its employees was the immediate
cause of the tragic death of said deceased.”

RTC ruled in favor of the respondents. CA affirmed.

Petitioner argues that respondents failed to prove its negligence; that Harper's own negligence in allowing
the killers into his hotel room was the proximate cause of his own death; and that hotels were not insurers
of the safety of their guests.
ISSUE/S
Whether or not petitioner had committed negligence and corollarily, whether its negligence was the
immediate cause of the death of Christian Harper.
RATIO
YES.

Makati Shangri-La Hotel, to stress, is a five-star hotel. The "reasonable care" that it must exercise for the
safety and comfort of its guests should be commensurate with the grade and quality of the
accommodation it offers. If there is such a thing as "five-star hotel security", the guests at Makati Shangri-
La surely deserves just that.

When one registers (as) a guest of a hotel, he makes the establishment the guardian of his life and his
personal belongings during his stay. It is a standard procedure of the management of the hotel to screen
visitors who call on their guests at their rooms. The murder of Harper could have been avoided had the
security guards of the Shangri-La Hotel in Makati dutifully observed this standard procedure."

It could be gleaned from findings of the trial court that its conclusion of negligence on the part of
defendant-appellant is grounded mainly on the latter's inadequate hotel security, more particularly on the
failure to deploy sufficient security personnel or roving guards at the time the ghastly incident happened.

A review of the testimony of Col. De Guzman reveals that on direct examination he testified that at the
time he assumed his position as Chief Security Officer of defendant-appellant, during the early part of
1999 to the early part of 2000, he noticed that some of the floors of the hotel were being guarded by a
few guards, for instance, 3 or 4 floors by one guard only on a roving manner. He then made a
recommendation that the ideal-set up for an effective security should be one guard for every floor,
considering that the hotel is L-shaped and the ends of the hallways cannot be seen. At the time he made
the recommendation, the same was denied, but it was later on considered and approved on December
1999 because of the Centennial Celebration.

It could be inferred from the foregoing declarations of the former Chief Security Officer of defendant-
appellant that the latter was negligent in providing adequate security due its guests. With confidence, it
was repeatedly claimed by defendant-appellant that it is a five-star hotel. Unfortunately, the record failed
to show that at the time of the death of Christian Harper, it was exercising reasonable care to protect its
guests from harm and danger by providing sufficient security commensurate to it being one of the finest
hotels in the country. In so concluding, WE are reminded of the Supreme Court's enunciation that the
hotel business like the common carrier's business is imbued with public interest. Catering to the public,
hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging for hotel guests but also security to their persons and
belongings. The twin duty constitutes the essence of the business.
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the judgment of the Court of Appeals; and ORDERS petitioner to
pay the costs of suit.
Notes

1-C 2015-16 (ALBALOS)