Gate crasher

Even if a person has a legal right but he exercised it in bad faith for the sole purpose of injuring another, he is liable for damages under Article 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. This is a principle that Mando tried to invoke but was not applied in his case.

Mando’s case stemmed from an incident which happened at a formal birthday party of a former manager of a posh five star hotel held at its penthouse. In keeping with the celebrant’s desire to make the party intimate, Remy, the hotel’s executive secretary and party organizer who had been in the hotel business for 20 years, drew up an exclusive guest list consisting of 60 closest friends of the celebrant. Mando was not in the list but he said that while he was having coffee at the hotel’s lobby, he was spotted by Virgie who was among those invited. According to Mando, Virgie approached him and invited him to join her in the said penthouse party, saying that he would vouch for him. So he joined Virgie and even helped her carry her gift consisting of a big basket of fruits. At the penthouse they first had their picture taken with the celebrant after which he sat with Virgie’s party. After a couple of hours, when buffet dinner was ready, Mando said he lined up at the buffet table but to his great shock, shame and embarrassment, Remy approached him and when she was at a very close distance from him, so close that they nearly kissed each other Remy shouted at him in a loud voice and said "wag kang kumain, hindi ka imbitado dito, bumaba ka na lang". He said he tried to explain that he was invited by Virgie but the latter completely ignored him thus adding to his shame and humiliation. Not long after while he was still recovering from the traumatic experience, a policeman approached him and asked him to step out of the hotel. Then he was led out of the hotel by said policeman like a common criminal. As a result of this incident, Mando sued Remy and the hotel claiming P1 million actual damages, P1 million moral and exemplary damages and P200,000 attorney’s fees based on Article 19 and 21 of the Civil Code.

For her part, Remy admitted having asked Mando to leave the party but not under the ignominious circumstance painted by the latter. She said she first noticed Mando at the bar counter ordering a drink. She then approached the captain waiter to inquire as to the presence of Mando who was not invited, mindful of the celebrant’s wishes to keep the party intimate. The waiter replied that Mando was with the group of Virgie. As Virgie was then engaged in conversation with another guest Remy inquired from Virgie’s sister who told her that Virgie did not invite Mando. Remy said that she then requested Virgie’s sister to ask Mando to leave but Mando did not heed the sister’s request. When Remy turned around she saw Mando conversing with another guest, Capt. Bando. Thus she requested Capt. Bando to tell Mando to leave, but Mando still lingered. So Remy said that she decided to speak to Mando herself when she spotted him at the buffet table. After Mando got his food and started to eat, Remy said she approached him and said: "alam ninyo, hindo ho kayo dapat nandito. Pero tutal nakakuha na ho kayo ng pagkain, ubusin na lang ninyo at pagkatapos kung pwede lang po umalis na kayo". She said she then turned around trusting that Mando 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.

Virgie also testified and said that she never invited Mando. According to her it was Mando who volunteered to carry the basket of fruits as he was likewise going to the elevator, not to the penthouse but to another room. When they reached the penthouse Virgie said she reminded Mando to go down as he was not properly dressed and was not invited. All the while she thought that Mando already left the place but she later saw him at the bar talking to a Capt. Bando. Then there was commotion and she saw Mando shouting. She ignored Mando as she was embarrassed and did not want the celebrant to think that she invited him.

After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint giving more credence to the testimony of Remy that she was discreet in asking Mando to leave. The RTC likewise ratiocinated that Mando assumed the risk of being thrown out of the party as he was uninvited. Was the RTC correct?

Yes. The object of Article 19 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. And these standards are: act with justice, give every one his due and observe honesty and good faith. When Article 19 is violated, an action for damages is proper under Article 21. A common theme runs through Article 19 and 21, and that is, the act must evince bad faith or intent to injure.

In this case, Remy’s act was done in good faith and without intent to injure. Mindful of the celebrant’s instruction to keep the party intimate, she would naturally want to get rid of the "gate crasher" in the most hush-hush manner in order not to call attention to a glitch in an otherwise seamless affair and in the process, risk the displeasure of the celebrant, her former boss. To unnecessarily call attention to the presence of Mando would certainly reflect badly on Remy’s ability to follow the instructions of the celebrant. Mando, upon whom the burden rests to prove that indeed Remy loudly and rudely ordered him to leave, could not offer any satisfactory explanation why Remy would do that and risk ruining a formal and intimate affair. On the contrary, Mando admitted that when Remy talked to him, she was very close, close enough for him to kiss. In the absence of any proof of motive on the part of Remy to humiliate him and expose him to ridicule and shame, it is highly unlikely that she would shout at him from a very close distance. The testimony of Mando does not inspire belief especially considering that Remy has been in the hotel business for 20 years wherein being polite and discreet are virtues to be emulated. Moreover, Mando’s story in this regard is unsupported.

So, Remy, not having abused her right to ask Mando to leave the party to which he was not invited, cannot be made liable for damages under article 19 and 21 of the Civil Code. Neither can her employer, the hotel, be held liable as its liability springs from that of its employer (Nikko Hotel Manila Garden and Lim vs. Reyes, G.R. 154259, February 28, 2005. 452 SCRA 532).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]