PENULLAR vs. PNB

No. L-­32762. January 27, 1983.

TOPIC:  Torts, Negligence

FACTS:

There was a land registration case between Cristina Penullar and Florencio Felix for the declaration of absolute nullity of judicial proceedings in a land registration case. While the case was pending, the land was mortgaged to PNB for a loan by the defendants of the case for declaration of nullity of judicial proceedings.

The CA in that case declared the judicial proceedings void and all Certificates of Title flowing from the proceedings null and void, but at the same time declared the mortgage of PNB valid on the basis of being a mortgagor in good faith.

Penullar claimed that PNB was negligent in allowing the void title to be mortgaged.

ISSUE: Whether or not PNB was negligent

HELD:

NO. PNB had a right to rely on the torrens titles presented to it, furthermore, Petitioner Penullar was also found to have been negligent, to wit:

He whose negligence had enabled a third person to cause damages shall, as between two innocent parties, bear the loss – “In the present case, [if herein petitioner] had appealed from the decision in the registration case, no certificate of Title would have been issued just like that in the name of the [petitioner] and no mortgage could have been constituted by them in favor of Bank but as it is, said [petitioner] failed to do that, instead they let the decision in the registration case gain the status of finality; allowed without prior protest, the certificate of title to be issued; did not even as early as possible, annotate an adverse claim on the titles; and they filed this case only several months afterwards, it was their negligence that permitted said adjudicatees in the said registration case to apply for and secure mortgages from the Bank.

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 for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.”

The hotel business is imbued with public interest. Hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging for their guests but also security to their persons and belongings 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 strangers murder inside his hotel room.

FACTS:

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

It was found that the muderer, a caucasian male, was able to trespass into the hotel room of the victim and was then able to murder and rob the victim. The heirs of the victim blame the hotel's gross negligence in providing the most basic security system of its guests.

The RTC held in favor of the heirs and ordered Shangri-la to pay damages. CA affirmed.

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 death of the victim was to deploy only one security or roving guard for every three 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 ommission is critical. The hotel business is imbued with public interest. Hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging for their guests but also security to their persons and belongings to their guest. The twin duty constitutes the essence of the business.

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

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

“The test of negligence is objective. WE measure the act or ommission of the tortfeasor with a perspective as that of an ordinary reasonable person who is similarly 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 caution which an ordinary person would have used in the same situation.”