MAKATI SHANGRI-LA vs.

HARPER

G.R. No. 189998. August 29, 2012

PONENTE: Bersamin

DOCTRINE:

Negligence Article 2176 0f the New Civil Code provides Whoever by act or omission
causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay fo
r the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contrac
tual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by t
he provisions of this Chapter.

The hotel business is imbued with public interest. Hotelkeepers are bound to pro
vide not only lodging for their guests but also security to their persons and be
longings to their guest. The twin duty constitutes the essence of the business (
Arts 2000-2001 New Civil Code).

Hotel owner is liable for civil damages to surviving heirs of hotel guest whom s
trangers murder inside his hotel room.

FACTS:
Christian Harper was a Norweigian who came to Manila on a business trip. He stay
ed at Makati Shangri-la Hotel, but he was murdered in his hotel room [Specifical
ly Room 1428. His ghost can be found there].

It was found that the muderer, a caucasian male, was able to trespass into the h
otel room of the victim and was then able to murder and rob the victim. The heir
s of the victim blame the hotel's gross negligence in providing the most basic s
ecurity system of its guests.
The RTC held in favor of the heirs and ordered Shangri-la to pay damages. CA aff
irmed.

ISSUE: WON Shangri-la Hotel is liable for damages.

HELD:
Yes. Shangri-la is liable due to its own negligence.

The testimony revealed that the management practice of the hotel prior to the de
ath of the victim was to deploy only one security or roving guard for every thre
e or four floors of the hotel, which is inadequate because the hotel is L-shaped
that rendered hallways not visible end to end. That there was a recommendation
to increase security to one guard per floor but this was not followed. This ommi
ssion is critical. The hotel business is imbued with public interest. Hotelkeepe
rs are bound to provide not only lodging for their guests but also security to t
heir persons and belongings to their guest. The twin duty constitutes the essenc
e of the business.

Therefore, the hotel has a greater degree of care and responsibility for its gue
sts , otherwise the hotelkeepers would just stand idly by while strangers have u
nrestricted access to all hotel rooms on the pretense of being visitors of the g
uests which is absurd.

Note: The decision of the CA was reproduced in the decision to which the SC conc
urred. The CA discussed the test of negligence as:

The test of negligence is objective. WE measure the act or ommission of the tortf
easor with a perspective as that of an ordinary reasonable person who is similar
ly situated. The test, as applied to the extant case, is whether or not [Shangri
-la Hotel], under the attendant circumstances, used that reasonable care and cau
tion which an ordinary person would have used in the same situation.