NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN and RUBY LIM, petitioners

vs. 
ROBERTO REYES, a.k.a. AMAY BISAYA, respondent.

Facts:
The cause of action before the trial court was one for damages brought under the human
relations provisions of the New Civil Code. Roberto Reyes, more popularly known by the screen
name Amay Bisaya, alleged that at around 6:00 oclock in the evening of 13 October 1994, while
he was having coffee at the lobby of Hotel Nikko, he was spotted by his friend of several years,
Dr. Violeta Filart, who then approached him. Mrs. Filart invited him to join her in a party at the
hotels penthouse in celebration of the natal day of the hotels manager, Mr. Masakazu Tsuruoka.
Mr. Reyes asked if she could vouch for him for which she replied: of course. Mr. Reyes then
went up with the party of Dr. Filart carrying the basket of fruits which was the latters present for
the celebrant After a couple of hours, when the buffet dinner was ready, Mr. Reyes lined-up at
the buffet table but, to his great shock, shame and embarrassment, he was stopped by
petitioner herein, Ruby Lim, who claimed to speak for Hotel Nikko as Executive Secretary
thereof. In a loud voice and within the presence and hearing of the other guests who were
making a queue at the buffet table, Ruby Lim told him to leave the party (huwag ka nang
kumain, hindi ka imbitado, bumaba ka na lang). ]Mr. Reyes tried to explain that he was invited
by Dr. Filart who was within hearing distance, however, completely ignored him thus adding to
his shame and humiliation. Not long after, while he was still recovering from the traumatic
experience, a Makati policeman approached and asked him to step out of the hotel. For the part
of the Executive Secretary she pose the following narrations “When Mr. Reyes went to a corner
and started to eat, Ms. Lim approached him and said: 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”.

Issue:

Wheter or not Mr. Reyes’ right was violated and thus entitles him for damages.

Held:

Mr. Reyes is not entitled for a claim of damages.

The facts disclosed that the Executive Secretary approach Mr. Reyes to tell the latter that he
has to leave the place because the celebrant wishes that the visitors are just his family and very
close friends which the herein petitioner does not belong to.

The humiliation and shame that the petitioner have felt is due to his very actions of shouting
after he was informed to leave the place. The doctrine of Volenti Non Fit Injuria is applicable in
this case, such that, to the willing person no injury was made. It was out of the invitation of the
other not the celebrant himself that the petitioner rely upon and that it was because of his act of
shouting that made him be humiliated in the said occasion. For a willing person and
knowledgeable of the consequences that may arise but opted to do the act no injury was
sustained as it is freely, voluntarily and willingly made.
GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH
Vs.
Court of Appeals

Facts:
The private respondent is twenty-two (22) years old, single, Filipino and a pretty lass of good
moral character and reputation duly respected in her community; petitioner, on the other hand,
is an Iranian citizen residing at the Lozano Apartments, Guilig, Dagupan City, and is an
exchange student taking a medical course at the Lyceum Northwestern Colleges in Dagupan
City. The petitioner courted and proposed to marry her; she accepted his love on the condition
that they would get married; they therefore agreed to get married after the end of the school
semester, which was in October of that year; petitioner then visited the private respondent's
parents in Bañaga, Bugallon, Pangasinan to secure their approval to the marriage; sometime in
20 August 1987, the petitioner forced her to live with him in the Lozano Apartments; she was a
virgin before she began living with him; a week before the filing of the complaint, petitioner's
attitude towards her started to change; he maltreated and threatened to kill her; as a result of
such maltreatment, she sustained injuries; during a confrontation with a representative of the
barangay captain of Guilig a day before the filing of the complaint, petitioner repudiated their
marriage agreement and asked her not to live with him anymore and; the petitioner is already
married to someone living in Bacolod City.

Issue:
Whether or not damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis of
Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Held:
In the light of the above laudable purpose of Article 21, We are of the opinion, and so hold, that
where a man's promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by
a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause
of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of
marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or
inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of
damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud
and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It
is essential, however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to
morals, good customs or public policy.
The existing rule is that breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong.  The court
held that when a man uses his promise of marriage to deceive a woman to consent to his
malicious desires, he commits fraud and willfully injures the woman.  In that instance, the court
found that petitioner’s deceptive promise to marry led Marilou to surrender her virtue and
womanhood.
Moral damages can be claimed when such promise to marry was a deceptive ploy to have
carnal knowledge with the woman and actual damages should be paid for the wedding
preparation expenses.  Petitioner even committed deplorable acts in disregard of the laws of the
country.
Velayo vs. C.A.

FACTS: Mr. Alexander Sycip, Secretary of the Board of Directors of the CALI,
informed the creditors present that this corporation was insolvent and had to stop
operations. He explained the memorandum agreement executed by the CALI with
the Philippine Air Lines, Inc., on August 4, 1948, regarding the proposed sale to the
latter of the aviation equipments of the former

Mr. Alexander Sycip was assisted in the explanation by CPA Alfredo Velayo of
Washington, Sycip & Company, Auditors of the CALI, who discussed the balance
sheets and distributed copies thereof to the creditors

The said balance sheet made mention of a C-54 plane in the United States, the
property now involved in this suit.   He was likewise assisted in his explanation by
Mr. Curtis L. Lambert, Vice President and General Manager of the CALI, who
described in greater detail the assets of the CALI

There was a general understanding among all the creditors present on the
desirability" of consummating the sale in favor of the Philippine Air Lines Inc.

No understanding was reached on the matter of preference (of credits) and it was
then generally agreed that this point be further studied by a working committee to
be formed

The creditors present agreed to the formation of a working committee to continue

the discussion of the payment of claims and preferences alleged by certain
creditors, and it was further agreed that said working committee would supervise
the preservation of the properties of the corporation while the creditors attempted
to come to an understanding as to a fair distribution of the assets among them

To this working committee, Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald, Credit Manager, of the

Defendant,among others was appointed. After the creditors present saw the
balance sheet and heard the explanations of the officers of the CALI, it was their
unanimous opinion that it would be advantageous not to present suits against this
corporation but to strive for a fair pro-rata division of its assets, although the
management of the CALI announced that in case of non-agreement of the creditors
on a pro-rata division of the assets, it would file insolvency proceedings (p. 70,
t.s.n., October 22, 1951).

Mr. Fitzgerald did not decline the nomination to form part of said working
committee and on August 9, 1948, the 3 members thereof discussed methods…to
preserve the assets of the CALI and to study the way of making a fair division of all
the assets among the creditors.

Atty. Sycip made an offer to Mr. D. Fitzgerald to name a representative to oversee

the preservation' of the assets of the CALI, but Mr. Fitzgerald replied that the
creditors could rely on Col. Lambert.

… the negotiation with respect to the division of assets of the CALI among the
creditors was left pending or under advice when on that very day of the meeting
of the working committee, August 9, 1948, which Mr. Fitzgerald attended,
Defendant effected a telegraphic transfer of its credit against the CALI to
the American corporation Shell Oil Company, ' Inc., assigning its credit,
amounting to $79,440.00, which was subsequently followed by a deed of
assignment of credit dated August 10, 1948, the credit amounting this time to the
sum of $85,081.29    (Exh. I).

Issue

Whether or not Shell acted in bad faith

Held:

Shell acted in bad faith.

Article 19 of the Civil Code provides that “ 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.”
It is evident that Shell, upon learning the precarious economic situation of CALI and that will all
probability, it could not get much of its outstanding credit because of the preferred claims of
other creditors, entirely disregarded all moral inhibitory tenets. That despite the fact that all
creditors jointly agreed that a certain set of standard should be followed in settling the debts of
CALI to all of them, Shell committed acts contra bonus mores to what they have agreed upon.
Thus, Shell’s action amounts to bad faith.