Huang v. Philippine Hoteliers Inc.,
Huang insisted that she was fine and that the
G.R. No. 180440, December 5, 2012
Facts:
On June 1995, Delia Goldberg (Delia), a registered guest of Dusit
Hotel, invited her friend, Dr. Genevieve L.Huang, for a swim at the
hotels pool.
At around 7:00 p.m., the hotels pool attendant informed them that
the swimming pool area was about to be closed. The 2 went to the
shower room adjacent to the swimming
pool to take a shower anddress up. When they came out of the
bathroom, the entire swimming pool area was already pitch black
and there were theonly ones there. The doors were also locked.
After some time, Huang saw a phone behind the lifeguards
counter.As she went inside, the wooden countertop fell onher head
and knocked her down almost unconscious. Delia immediately
notified the hotel phone operator of the
incident. Not long after, the hotel staf arrived at the main entrance
door of the swimming pool area and gave her an icepack.Huang
demanded the services of the hotel physician. Hotel physician, Dr.
Dalumpines, instead of immediately providingthe needed medical
assistance, presented a Waiver and demanded that it be signed
by Huang, otherwise, the hotelmanagement will not render her any
assistance. Huang refused to do so and left the hotel.Thereupon,
Huang consulted several doctors (7 neuro, 1 optha) because
she began experiencing on and of severeheadaches that negligence but not on any breach of contract.Presently, she claims
caused her three sleepless nights. They all said she had a serious
brain injury.In defense, PHI and Dusit denied all the material
allegations. According to them, a sufficient notice on the glass door
ofthe hotel leading to the swimming pool area to apprise the
people, especially the hotel guests, that the swimming pool areais
open only from 7am to 7pm. Nevertheless, the lights thereon are
kept on until 10:00 p.m. for, (1) security reasons; (2)housekeeping
personnel to do the cleaning of the swimming pool surroundings;
and (3) people doing their exercise routineat the Slimmers World
Gym, which was open until 10pm. Even granting that the lights in
the hotels swimming pool areawere turned of, it would not render
the area completely dark as the Slimmers World Gym near it was
well- illuminated.Around 7:40pm, Ms. Pearlie (hotel nurse) was
informed that there was a guest requiring medical assistance. She
hurriedlywent to the pool area. Although Huang looked normal as
there was no indication of any blood or bruise on her head,
Ms.Pearlie still asked her if she needed any medical attention to
which she replied that she is a doctor, she was fine and shedid not
need any medical attention. Instead, requested for a hirudoid
cream to which Ms. Pearlie acceded. Dr. Dalumpinescame to check
Huangs condition.
hirudoid cream was enough. Dr.Dalumpines requested Huang to
execute a handwritten certification regarding the incident that
occurred that night. An X-Ray test was also suggested to Huang
but she replied that it was not necessary. She also refused further
medical attention.On Aug 1996, Huang filed a complaint for
damages against respondents. The trial court dismissed the
Complaint for lackof merit. On appeal, Huang belatedly raises the
defense on breach of contract. She maintains that that an implied
contractexisted between them in view of the fact that the hotel
guest status extends to all those who avail of its
services its patrons and invitees. The CA
affirmed the TCs decision. MR denied. Hence, this Petition for
certiorari under Rule 45.She also avows that the doctrines ofres
ipsa loquitur andrespondeat superior are applicable in this case. It
was anaccident caused by the fact that the hotel staf was not
present to lift the heavy counter top for Huang as is
normallyexpected of them because they negligently locked the
main entrance door of the hotels swimming pool area.
Issue:
Whether respondents PHI and Dusit are liable to Dr. Huang.
Held:
NO. Initially, Huang sued respondents mainly on account of their
that her cause of action can be based both on quasi-delict and
breach of contract. A perusal of thecomplaint evidently shows that
her cause of action was based solely on quasi-delict (negligence). It
is evident from thecomplaint and from her open court testimony
that the reliance was on the alleged tortious acts committed
against her byrespondents, through their management and staf. In
quasi-delict, there is no presumption of negligence and it is
incumbent upon the injured party to prove the negligence ofthe
defendant, otherwise, the formers complaint will be dismissed. In a
breach of contract, negligence is presumed solong as it can be
proved that there was breach of the contract and the burden is on
the defendant to prove that there was nonegligence in the carrying
out of the terms of the contract; the rule of respondeat superior is
followed. It is now too late toraise the said argument for the first
time before the SC without causing injustice.As Huangs cause of
action is based on quasi-delict, it is incumbent upon her to prove
the presence of the followingrequisites before respondents PHI and
Dusit can be held liable, to wit: (a) damages sufered by the
plaintif; (b)fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other
person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connectionof
1
cause and efect between the fault or negligence of the defendant
and the damages incurred by the plaintif. Further, since her case is
for quasi-delict, the negligence or fault should be clearly
established as it is the basis of heraction. The burden of proof is
upon her.Second element Absent: In this case, Huang utterly failed
to prove the alleged negligence of respondents. Other than herself-
serving testimony that all the lights in the hotels swimming pool
area were shut of and the door was locked, whichallegedly
prompted her to find a way out and in doing so a folding wooden
counter top fell on her head causing her injury,no other evidence
was presented to substantiate the same. Even her own companion
during the night of the accident insidethe hotels swimming pool
area was never presented to corroborate her allegations.On the
other hand, the witnesses presented by the respondents positively
declared that it has been a normal practice of the hotel
management not to put ofthe lights until 10pm. to allow the
housekeepers to do the cleaning of the swimming pool
surroundings, including thetoilets and counters. There is a remote
possibility that the hotels swimming pool area was in complete
darkness as theaforesaid gym was then open until 10pm, and the
lights radiate to the hotels swimming pool area.Ergo, she cannot
faultthe Hotel for the injury she allegedly sufered because she
herself did not heed the warning at the pool to the efect that itwas
only open from 7:00 to 7:00 P.M. Thus, when the own negligence
was the immediate and proximate cause of hisinjury, she then
cannot recover damages.Even Huangs assertion of negligence on
the part of respondents in not rendering medical assistance to her
is preposterous.Her own Complaint affirmed that respondents
aforded medical assistance to her after she met the unfortunate
accidentinside the hotels swimming pool facility. Moreover, the
Hotel shouldered the expenses for the MRI services at the
MakatiMed.Res Ipsa Loquitur&RespondeatSuperior :With regard to
Huangs contention that the principles
ofresipsaloquitur andrespondeat superior are applicable in this
case, this Court holds otherwise. Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase
whichliterally means the thing or the transaction speaks for
itself. It relates to the fact of an injury that sets out an inference
tothe cause thereof or establishes the plaintifs prima facie case.
The doctrine finds no application if there is direct proof of absence
or presence of negligence. In the case at bench, even granting that
respondentsstaf negligently turned of thelights and locked the
door, the folding wooden counter top would still not fall on Huangs
head had she not lifted the same.Records showed that she lifted
the said folding wooden counter top that eventually fell and hit her
head.Doctrine ofrespondeat superior finds no application in the
absence of any showing that the employees of respondentswere
negligent. Since in this case, the trial court and the CA found no
negligence on the part of the employees ofrespondents, thus, the
latter cannot also be held liable for negligence. With the foregoing,
the following were clearlyestablished, to wit: (1) petitioner stayed
in the hotels swimming pool facility beyond its closing hours; (2)
she lifted the folding wooden counter top that eventually hit her
head;and (3) respondents extended medical assistance to her. As
such, no negligence can be attributed either to or to their staf
and/or management.Third element:On the issue on
whetherHuangsdebilitating and permanent injuries were the result
of the accident she
sufered at the hotels swimming pool area, theCourt holds that
there is no cogent reason to depart from thelower courts findings.
(1)Huang had a past medical history which might have been the
cause of her recurring brain injury.(2)The findings of Dr. Perez
did not prove a causal relation between the 11 June 1995 accident
and the brain damagesufered by Huang. Dr. Perez himself testified
that the symptoms being experienced might have been due to
factors other than the head trauma she allegedly sufered.(3)Dr.
Sanchezs testimony was hearsay. (4)Medical
reports/evaluations/certifications issued by myriads of doctors
whom petitioner sought for examinationor treatment were neither
identified nor testified to by those who issued them. Being deemed
as hearsay, theycannot be given probative value.All told, in the
absence of negligence on the part of respondents as well as their
management and staf, they cannot bemade liable to pay for the
millions of damages prayed for. Since respondents arc not liable, it
necessarily follows that FirstLepanto cannot also be made liable
under the contract of Insurance.