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.