Case Digest: Spouses Guanio vs. Makati Shangri-La

G.R. No. 190601 : February 7, 2011

SPOUSES LUIGI M. GUANIO and ANNA HERNANDEZ-GUANIO, Petitioners, v. MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL and RESORT, INC., also doing business under the name of SHANGRI-LA HOTEL MANILA, Respondent.



For their wedding reception on July 28, 2001, spouses Luigi M. Guanio and Anna Hernandez-Guanio (petitioners) booked at the Shangri-la Hotel Makati.

Petitioners claim that during the reception, respondent’s representatives, Catering Director Bea Marquez and Sales Manager Tessa Alvarez, did not show up despite their assurance that they would; their guests complained of the delay in the service of the dinner; certain items listed in the published menu were unavailable; the hotel’s waiters were rude and unapologetic when confronted about the delay; and despite Alvarez’s promise that there would be no charge for the extension of the reception beyond 12:00 midnight, they were billed and paid P8,000 per hour for the three-hour extension of the event up to 4:00 A.M. the next day.

Petitioners filed a complaint for breach of contract and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. The Makati RTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioners. The trial court observed that from the tenor of the letter, the defendant admitted that the services were unacceptable and definitely not up to their standards.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, it holding that the proximate cause of petitioners’ injury was an unexpected increase in their guests.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is breach of contract.


The petition is meritorious.


To the Court, the delay in service might have been avoided or minimized if respondent exercised prescience in scheduling events. No less than quality service should be delivered especially in events which possibility of repetition is close to nil. Petitioners are not expected to get married twice in their lifetimes.

In the present petition, under considerations of equity, the Court deems it just to award the amount of P50,000.00 by way of nominal damages to petitioners, for the discomfiture that they were subjected to during to the event. The Court recognizes that every person is entitled to respect of his dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind. Respondent’s lack of prudence is an affront to this right.

The decision of CA is partially REVERSED.