SC junks doctor’s P100-M lawsuit vs Makati hotel


MANILA, Philippines—A woman-doctor’s 17-year demand for P100 million in damages from a Makati City hotel for a recurring brain injury she allegedly suffered through the years after she hit her head inside the hotel has ended after the Supreme Court (SC) dismissed her claim for lack of merit.

The high court’s Second Division threw out Dr. Genevieve Huang’s appeal on the earlier rulings of the Court of Appeals and the Makati Regional Trial Court which both dismissed her claim for damages for lack of merit in 2006 and 2007, respectively.

“This court examined the records, including the transcripts of stenographic notes, and found no reason to disturb the factual findings of both lower courts. This court, thus, upholds their conclusiveness,” the high tribunal said in the decision penned by Justice Jose Perez.

Justices Arturo Brion, Presbitero Velasco Jr., Martin Villarama Jr. and Estela Perlas-Bernade concurred in the decision.

In August 1996, Huang filed a complaint for damages in the Makati Regional Trial Court against Dusit Thani’s owners, Philippine Hoteliers Inc. and Dusit Thani Public Co. Ltd, as well as the hotel’s insurer, First Lepanto Taisho Insurance Corp.

Court records showed that in June 1995, Huang and a friend had just finished swimming at the hotel pool and were showering when the lights were switched off, plunging the area into darkness. She said they walked carefully to the main door leading out of the pool area but found the door locked.

While looking for a house phone in the dark, Huang spotted one behind the lifeguard’s counter. She said she was walking toward it when she hit her head on a wooden folding countertop, which almost knocked her unconscious.

Huang’s friend called for assistance, and hotel staff brought Huang to the coffee shop.

After arriving home, Huang said she experienced “extraordinary dizziness” and stomach problems for two days, and had headaches for three days. She consulted a neurologist who detected bruising in her head using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and told her she had a very serious brain injury. Two other doctors she consulted came up with similar findings.

After filing the damage suit, Huang went to the United States for further medical treatment. The Mount Sinai Hospital made a similar diagnosis and prescribed her medication for severe pain and made her undergo physical therapy. Her condition, however, did not improve so she went back to the Philippines. She consulted her previous doctors who all advised her to continue her medications and undergo therapy.

In 1996, Huang said the vision in her right eye began to deteriorate and, in 1999, she began experiencing severe fleeting pains in her head, arms and legs; difficulty in concentrating and felt a warm sensation in the legs. The last doctor she consulted concluded that she had a post-traumatic or post-concussion syndrome, an indication of a permanent damage in the brain.

Self-serving testimony

The RTC, however, gave more credence to the defense of the respondents, particularly hotel staff who contradicted Huang’s version of events. The trial court found the petitioner’s testimony “self-serving, thus devoid of credibility,” noting that it was through her own neglect and carelessness that she suffered the injury.

The RTC faulted Huang for failing to present any evidence to substantiate her allegation that the lights in the hotel’s pool area were shut off at the time of the incident. The judge noted that Huang did not present her friend to corroborate her testimony. All the doctors whom Huang consulted, except the last one, also were not presented to the court.

One hotel staffer said he told Huang and her friend to take their showers soon as the pool would be closing by 7 p.m. Another said the pool area was not really dark as Huang claimed, because the lights from a nearby gym overlooking the pool were still on.

The hotel nurse and doctor also testified that Huang told them she was OK and that being a doctor, she knew her condition.

The Supreme Court also agreed with the findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals that there was no indication that Huang’s head injury was the result of the hotel incident.

The high court noted the RTC’s findings that Huang admitted to suffering different “brain problems” since she was 18 years old and these may have been the cause of her current problems. The court also learned that Huang once fell from a horse, suffered a stroke and had a blood disorder, among other ailments.

Get Inquirer updates while on the go, add us on these apps:

Inquirer Viber

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • bilango71

    Sinusubukan  lang baka makalusot.,  The truth came out and the palusot did not succeed, This is typical Filipino  maneuver. 

    • Komen To

      She’s not Pinoy

    • dodong1

      Dr. Genevieve Huang’s FILIPINO???? NOT!!!

  • January

    minsan ginawang business ang kaso,,,problima lang kasi ng korte natin ,,mamatay pa yong taong nag file ng kaso at saka may resulta,at sino may pera pang follow up at saka lalakad ang kaso den ok lang kong pantay pantay ang pagdinig but minsan sino ang magaling na abugado yon ang manalo,,kalaki ata ng sahod ng mga judges na yan.

  • joboni96

    intsik switik na naman

  • Komen To

    Next time, she will claim that the hotel belongs to her, just like the Scarborough is claimed to be theirs

  • dodong1

    The last doctor she consulted concluded that she had  an indication of a permanent damage in the brain, FOR FILING A 100 MILLION PESOS LAWSUIT… doctors who all advised her to continue her medications and undergo therapy.

  • tarikan

    Dr. G. Hung-Huang? P100M yun mga CA. It did not enter your minds, justices? 

  • Olibo

    Is it a case of delayed reaction?

  • opinyonlangpo

    The insurance company seems to be the proper venue to file the claim. This person probably is not insured or some $$$ lawyer advised her, in that case it should have been better to hit her head on the pavement and claim from the government for bigger amount.

  • Kaloy

     I remember a news item I read before where  a mall in (USA) paid a customer a total amount of $48,000 when she slid and bumped her head on the way out of the mall  because of banana peel left on the aisle. But P100 million damage claim is too much for the accident reported particularly when claim is against a local company like Dusit..

    Taya na lang siya sa lotto baka manalo pa ang claimant.

  • vinzerx

    LOL. I hope she’s forced to pay all legal fees for this farce of a lawsuit.

  • Night

    sayang… dapat kasi Huang. sinabihan mo yung mga justices na hati hati kayo sa 100 Million…. divided by 16 kumbaga… me nakuha ka sana ungas

    • Juan_Sipag08

      Hehehehehe galing mo night

  • louie

    17 yrs for this case? 

  • Ping Gonzales

    Whatever is the real story of this case it should not take 17 yrs to make the decision parang antayin pang mamatay 0 kaya ma discourage ang claimant bago ilabas ang decision na di naman favorable sa kanya, 17 yrs Diyos ko !

  • indiosbravos2002

    If the amount was any lower, I think the hotel would have settled. However, a 100 million suit in 1996 is simply criminal.
    Nagtaka lang ako kahit tapos na kaso bakit di pa rin napublish yong pangalan nong hotel.

    • Allan

      dusit thani nga ang name ng hotel.

  • Paul Dela Rosa

    17 years? grabe

  • Janch

    Mahirap manalo kung wala kang iprinisintang ebidensya.  Kung may ibang tumestigo na nauntog ang ulo niya dahil kumakapa sila sa dilim at may doktor na nagpatunay na nagkaroon siya ng brain damage pagkatapos siya nauntog, malamang nanalo siya at may makukuhang damages.

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94


editors' picks



latest videos