Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Huang Vs Phil. Hoteliers
Huang Vs Phil. Hoteliers
1
cause and efect between the fault or negligence of the defendant The doctrine finds no application if there is direct proof of absence
and the damages incurred by the plaintif. Further, since her case is or presence of negligence. In the case at bench, even granting that
for quasi-delict, the negligence or fault should be clearly respondentsstaf negligently turned of thelights and locked the
established as it is the basis of heraction. The burden of proof is door, the folding wooden counter top would still not fall on Huangs
upon her.Second element Absent: In this case, Huang utterly failed head had she not lifted the same.Records showed that she lifted
to prove the alleged negligence of respondents. Other than herself- the said folding wooden counter top that eventually fell and hit her
serving testimony that all the lights in the hotels swimming pool head.Doctrine ofrespondeat superior finds no application in the
area were shut of and the door was locked, whichallegedly absence of any showing that the employees of respondentswere
prompted her to find a way out and in doing so a folding wooden negligent. Since in this case, the trial court and the CA found no
counter top fell on her head causing her injury,no other evidence negligence on the part of the employees ofrespondents, thus, the
was presented to substantiate the same. Even her own companion latter cannot also be held liable for negligence. With the foregoing,
during the night of the accident insidethe hotels swimming pool the following were clearlyestablished, to wit: (1) petitioner stayed
area was never presented to corroborate her allegations.On the in the hotels swimming pool facility beyond its closing hours; (2)
other hand, the witnesses presented by the respondents positively she lifted the folding wooden counter top that eventually hit her
declared that it has been a normal practice of the hotel head;and (3) respondents extended medical assistance to her. As
management not to put ofthe lights until 10pm. to allow the such, no negligence can be attributed either to or to their staf
housekeepers to do the cleaning of the swimming pool and/or management.Third element:On the issue on
surroundings, including thetoilets and counters. There is a remote whetherHuangsdebilitating and permanent injuries were the result
possibility that the hotels swimming pool area was in complete of the accident she
darkness as theaforesaid gym was then open until 10pm, and the sufered at the hotels swimming pool area, theCourt holds that
lights radiate to the hotels swimming pool area.Ergo, she cannot there is no cogent reason to depart from thelower courts findings.
faultthe Hotel for the injury she allegedly sufered because she (1)Huang had a past medical history which might have been the
herself did not heed the warning at the pool to the efect that itwas cause of her recurring brain injury.(2)The findings of Dr. Perez
only open from 7:00 to 7:00 P.M. Thus, when the own negligence did not prove a causal relation between the 11 June 1995 accident
was the immediate and proximate cause of hisinjury, she then and the brain damagesufered by Huang. Dr. Perez himself testified
cannot recover damages.Even Huangs assertion of negligence on that the symptoms being experienced might have been due to
the part of respondents in not rendering medical assistance to her factors other than the head trauma she allegedly sufered.(3)Dr.
is preposterous.Her own Complaint affirmed that respondents Sanchezs testimony was hearsay. (4)Medical
aforded medical assistance to her after she met the unfortunate reports/evaluations/certifications issued by myriads of doctors
accidentinside the hotels swimming pool facility. Moreover, the whom petitioner sought for examinationor treatment were neither
Hotel shouldered the expenses for the MRI services at the identified nor testified to by those who issued them. Being deemed
MakatiMed.Res Ipsa Loquitur&RespondeatSuperior :With regard to as hearsay, theycannot be given probative value.All told, in the
Huangs contention that the principles absence of negligence on the part of respondents as well as their
ofresipsaloquitur andrespondeat superior are applicable in this management and staf, they cannot bemade liable to pay for the
case, this Court holds otherwise. Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase millions of damages prayed for. Since respondents arc not liable, it
whichliterally means the thing or the transaction speaks for necessarily follows that FirstLepanto cannot also be made liable
itself. It relates to the fact of an injury that sets out an inference under the contract of Insurance.
tothe cause thereof or establishes the plaintifs prima facie case.