Case 24. Makati Shangri-La Hotel and Resort Inc. v. Ellen Johanne Harper, et al_De Vera
59
Audio Transcript Auto-generated
- 00:02 - 00:08
Hotel on a short incorporated versus Ellen Johann Harper at
- 00:08 - 00:09
all J.
- 00:09 - 00:15
R. Number 189998 August 29 2000 and 12.
- 00:16 - 00:22
The case is about necessity deposit under the doctrine on
- 00:22 - 00:27
Negligence, which states that negligence is defined as the omission
- 00:28 - 00:32
to do something which a reasonable man guided by those
- 00:33 - 00:38
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would
- 00:38 - 00:43
do, or the doing of something which a product and
- 00:43 - 00:44
reasonable man would not do.
- 00:47 - 00:49
The facts of the case are the following.
- 00:52 - 00:56
Petitioner is the owner and operator off hotel.
- 00:57 - 01:01
We're in a certain Christian Harper on executive off Alstom
- 01:01 - 01:06
Power Nouri on engineering firm based in Oslo, Norway.
- 01:07 - 01:10
Check in and believe that a room number 14 to
- 01:11 - 01:15
8 Christian Harper was due to check out the next
- 01:15 - 01:19
day but failed to do so later that day.
- 01:19 - 01:23
It was found out that he was murdered inside his
- 01:23 - 01:26
hotel room by an unidentified manufacturers.
- 01:28 - 01:31
The family and heirs of the deceased filed a suit
- 01:32 - 01:37
against the hotel for actual and compensatory damages, including costs
- 01:38 - 01:41
for the transport off the remain off Harper to Oslo,
- 01:42 - 01:49
Norway. However, the petitioner argued that they cannot be held
- 01:49 - 01:53
liable for the death of Christian Harper because it was
- 01:53 - 01:58
Christian. It was Harper's own negligence in allowing the killers
- 01:58 - 01:59
into his hotel room.
- 02:00 - 02:03
What's the proximate cost off his own death on that?
- 02:04 - 02:07
The hotels were not insurer off the safety off their
- 02:08 - 02:16
guests issue whether or not the petitioner had committed negligence
- 02:17 - 02:22
on that negligence is the proximate cause off the death
- 02:22 - 02:25
off the victim ruling.
- 02:27 - 02:32
Yes, the hotel business is imbued with public interest catering
- 02:32 - 02:33
to the public.
- 02:34 - 02:37
Tell keepers are bound to provide not Onley lodging for
- 02:37 - 02:37
their guests.
- 02:38 - 02:42
But also security to the persons on belongings off their
- 02:42 - 02:46
guests between duty constitutes the essence off the business.
- 02:49 - 02:54
Applying by Analogy Article 2 2000, Article 2001 and Article
- 02:55 - 02:59
2002 off the Civil Code, all of which concerned the
- 02:59 - 03:04
hotel keepers degree off care on responsibility as to the
- 03:04 - 03:04
personal effects.
- 03:05 - 03:08
After guests, we hold that there iss much greater reason
- 03:09 - 03:12
to apply the same if not greater degree off care
- 03:13 - 03:16
and responsibility, who in the lives and personal safety of
- 03:17 - 03:17
their guests are involved.
- 03:20 - 03:23
Otherwise the hotel keepers would simply stand.
- 03:24 - 03:28
I leave by a stranger's have a nun Restricted access
- 03:28 - 03:32
toe all the hotel rooms on the president's off, being
- 03:32 - 03:35
visitors of the guests without being held liable.
- 03:36 - 03:41
Should anything untoward before then worry guests, that would be
- 03:41 - 03:44
absurd. Something that no good law would ever invasion.
- 03:48 - 03:50
Thank you for listening and good evening.