Court of Appeals to Ricky Reyes: Pay client for botched salon treatment

MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals (CA) has ordered popular beauty expert Ricky Reyes and a salon attendant to pay nearly P125,000 in damages to a woman who suffered hair loss from a treatment done at a branch of his salon in 2000.

Reversing an earlier decision of a Marikina regional trial court (RTC) in October 2007, the CA’s 13th division ruled that Reyes and salon attendant Jane Lopez were both responsible for the hair loss due to chemical irritation suffered by complainant Ma. Lourdes Grace Hernandez after she underwent hair-relaxing treatment at the Ricky Reyes salon in Mandaluyong City.

“Contrary to findings of the RTC, (Hernandez) was able to sufficiently establish by preponderance of evidence the damage she suffered as a result of the hair-relaxing service,” stated the nine-page decision penned by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe.

The CA cited findings of Dr. Guia Avecilla of Makati Medical Center, who examined Hernandez two days after the salon treatment and found that she suffered from “moderate hair loss secondary to chemical irritation” and “a condition where hair is cut on certain portion.”

The CA said it found negligence on the part of Lopez, who did the the treatment on Hernandez on June 17, 2000, based Article 2176 of Civil Code.

In her testimony, Hernandez said she complained to Lopez about bad smell of the chemical applied to her hair and also of a burning sensation on her scalp. She said Lopez still continued applying a second bottle of the hair-relaxing formula and just told her to undergo a hot oil treatment later.

As for Reyes – whose real name is Ricardo Reyes Jr. – the CA said he should be held liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which makes an employer instantly negligent in cases of negligence of an employee.

“Reyes failed to rebut the presumption of negligence flowing from the negligence of his employee. His defense of diligence of a good father of a family was not duly established by clear and convincing evidence,” the CA ruled.

In its earlier ruling, the trial court dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence and ruled that the testimony of Avecilla “severely lacked in details” as compared to the defense that the irritation was supposedly caused by excessive use of hair color by the complainant.

The CA said the trial court erred in recognizing the damages suffered by complainant, negligence of Lopez and the connection between the two under contractual obligation, which was established through the receipt of P950 for the service.

Reyes and Lopez were ordered to pay P4,681.65 for actual damage, P50,000 for moral damage, P20,000 for exemplary damage and P50,000 for legal damage.