Back in November 2009, we talked about the Liabilities of Hotels and Inns and the applicable provisions - Articles 1998-2004 - of the Civil Code. The Civil Code only covers liability for personal effects, not personal security and safety. But at the end of our piece, we mentioned the then recent Court of Appeals decision (affirming the Quezon City Regional Trial Court’s judgment) ordering the Makati Shangri-la hotel to pay actual and compensatory damages, inter alia, to the heirs of a guest who was murdered in the hotel.
Well, the Supreme Court just
affirmed said Court of Appeals decision. It is worth noting that for a death
which occurred in 1999, the final decision of the Supreme Court came out in
2012, a span of more than eleven (11) years. Justice here has been
long delayed.
The petitioners sought relief
before the Supreme Court when the Court of Appeals ruled against them.
It is interesting to note the main
rationale in both courts’ decisions. The
Supreme Court succinctly states its decision
in its introductory line[1] -
“The hotel owner is
liable for civil damages to the surviving heirs of its hotel guest whom
strangers murder inside his hotel room.”
So how could the hotel be liable
despite the lack of any legal provision applying squarely to the facts of the
case? Negligence. And the CA was able to determine that the
proximate cause of the victim’s death was the hotel’s, and not the victim’s,
negligence.
Let’s read the facts: The Makati
Shangri-la’s closed circuit television (CCTV) tapes showed that the victim,
Christian Fredrik Harper, “entered his room at 12:14 a.m. of November 6, 1999,
and had been followed into the room at 12:17 a.m. by a woman; [and] that
another person, a Caucasian male, had entered Harper’s room at 2:48 a.m.; that
the woman had left the room at around 5:33 a.m.; and that the Caucasian male
had come out at 5:46 a.m.”
Fast forward a few hours later:
“around 11:00 am … a Caucasian male of about 30–32
years in age, 5’4” in height, clad in maroon long sleeves, black denims and
black shoes, entered [a jewelry store in] Makati City 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 [the]
saleslady … 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 … the Duty Manager of the Shangri-La Hotel, to check on Harper’s
room. Alarcon and a security personnel went to [the room] at 11:27 a.m., and
were shocked to discover Harper’s lifeless body on the bed.”
On direct examination, the Makati Shangri-la’s then Chief
Security Officer stated that “at the time he assumed his position as Chief
Security Officer … 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” prompting him to make “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 … as the hotel was not doing
well and it was not fully booked so the existing security was adequate enough
...” The “one guard, one floor” policy
was put in place only after Harper’s murder.
Turns out that “the male culprit who entered Christian
Harper’s room was never checked by any of the guards when he came inside the
hotel.” The guards also said that no one knew “said man entered the hotel and
it was only through the monitor that they became aware of his entry. It was
even evidenced by the CCTV that before he walked to the room of the late
Christian Harper, said male suspect even looked at the monitoring camera. Such
act of the man showing wariness, added to the fact that his entry to the hotel
was unnoticed, at an unholy hour, should have aroused suspicion on the part of
the roving guard in the said floor, had there been any.”
Further, “there were prior incidents that occurred in the
hotel which should have forewarned the hotel management of the security lapses
of the hotel. As testified to by Col. De Guzman, “there were ‘minor’ incidents”
(loss of items) before the happening of the instant case. The CA noted that the “minor” incidents may
be of little significance to the hotel, yet relative to the instant case, it
speaks volume [sic]. This should have served as a caveat that the hotel
security has lapses.”
Based on the foregoing facts, the Court of Appeals held
that the Makati Shangri-la “was negligent in providing adequate security due
its guests” and did not exercise “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.”
The CA stated 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.”
This inadequate security was thus deemed the proximate
cause of Harper’s murder as explained by the CA:
“Proximate cause is defined as that cause, which, in
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause,
produces, the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
More comprehensively, proximate cause is that cause acting first and producing
the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all
constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close
causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as natural and probable result of the cause which
first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first
event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable
ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some
person might probably result therefrom.”
In affirming the CA’s findings and judgment, the Supreme
Court further stated that:
“Applying by analogy Article 2000, Article 2001 and
Article 2002 of the Civil Code (all of which concerned the hotelkeepers’ degree
of care and responsibility as to the personal effects of their guests), we hold
that there is much greater reason to apply the same if not greater degree of
care and responsibility when the lives and personal safety of their guests are
involved. Otherwise, the hotelkeepers would simply stand idly by as strangers
have unrestricted access to all the hotel rooms on the pretense of being
visitors of the guests, without being held liable should anything untoward·
befall the unwary guests. That would be absurd, something that no good law
would ever envision.”
Cost-cutting
measures are understandable – even for 5-star hotels - but those that place
someone’s personal safety and security at risk are never worth taking. Guests
have an expectation that they will find safe repose in such places, and not an
eternal one.
