Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Spouses Mamaril v.

Sps Mamaril are jeepney operators and they would park their 6
passenger jeepneys every night at the BSP compound in
Malate for P300 per month for each unit.
One day, one of the vehicles was missing and as never
recovered. According to security guards Pena and Gaddi of
AIB Security Agency with whom BSP had contracted for its
security and protection, a male person who looked familiar to
them took the vehicle out of the compound.
Sps Mamaril then filed a complaint for damages before RTC
Manila against BSP, AIB Pena and Gaddi. They averred that
the loss was due to the gross negligence of the security
guards on duty who allowed the subject vehicle to be taken
out by a stranger despite their agreement that only
authorized driver duly endorsed by the spouses could do so.
Security guards also admitted their negligence during the
Sps Mamaril prayed that respondents be held liable for (a)
value of subject vehicle and accessories in aggregate
amount of P300k; (b) amount representing daily loss of
income/ boundary for; (c) exemplary damages; (d) moral
damages; (e) attorneys fees and (f) cost of suit.
BSP: denied liability contending that only Sps Mamaril directly
deal with AIB with respect to the parking of vehicles but the
parking ticket expressly stated that Management shall not
be responsible for loss of vehicle or any of its accessories or
article left therein.
-Sps Mamaril erroneously relied on
the Guard Service Contract and its provisions cover
only the protection of BSPs properties, its officers and
its employees.
AIB: alleged that it has observed due diligence in the selection
of security guards.
Pena & Gaddi: claimed that the person who drove out the
vehicle represented himself as the owners authorized driver
and had with him the key. Thus, spouses have no cause of
RTC: ruled in favor of Sps Mamaril. Respondents were ordered
to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs.
-the act of Pena and Gaddi in allowing the entry of an
unidentified person in violation of internal agreement
with spouses constituted gross negligence, rendering
AIB and the security guards liable.
Only BSP appealed before the CA.
CA: affirmed that security guards were negligent.
-absolved BSP from liability, Guard Service Contract
is purely between BSP and AIB and no indications
that BSP would be liable to third persons; no sufficient
evidence that BSP was negligent.
-agreement between Sps and BSP was a contract of
lease. As such, the lessor, BSP was not an insurer nor
bound to take care/ protect lessees vehicles.
Sps Mamarils MR was denied.
Whether BSP may be held liable for the loss of vehicle based
on the Guard Service Contract and parking ticket it issued.

NO. In this case, the proximate cause of the loss of the vehicle
was the negligent act of the security guards Pena and Gaddi in
allowing an unidentified person to drive out the vehicle. The
records are bereft of any finding of negligence on the part of
BSP. Neither will the liability of employer under Art. 2180 of
Civil Code apply in this case. Pena and Gaddi were assigned
as security guards by AIB to BSP pursuant to Guard Service
Contract. Clearly, no employer-employee relationship existed
between BSP and the security guards. The latters negligence
cannot be imputed against BSP but should be attributed to AIB.
No principal-agent relationship between BSP and security
guards as to make BSP liable for the latters action.
Art. 1311 par 2. If a contract should contain some stipulation in
favor of a third person, he may demand its fulfillment provided he
communicated his acceptance to the obligor before its revocation.
A mere incidental benefit or interest of a person is not sufficient.
The contracting parties must have clearly and deliberately
conferred a favor upon a third person.

Requisites: 1. There is stipulation in favor of 3rd person

2. Stipulation is part, not whole, of the contract
3. Contracting parties clearly and deliberately
conferred favor to 3rd person
4. Favor is unconditional and uncompensated
5. 3rd person communicated his acceptance of favor
before revocation
6. Contracting parties do not represent, or are not
authorized by 3rd party.
**None of these elements obtains in this case. Hence Sps are
not parties to Guard Service Contract. Under the principle of
relativity of contracts, they cannot validly claim any rights or
favor under the said agreement.
Court concurs with CA that contract between BSP and Sps was
one of lease as defined under Art. 1643; the act of parking a
vehicle in a garage upon payment of a fixed amount is a lease.
Art. 1664 lessor is not obliged to answer for a mere act of
trespass which a third person may cause on the use of the
thing leased; but the lessee shall have a direct action against
intruder. Here, BSP was not remiss in its obligation to provide
Sps Mamaril a suitable parking space.
Agreement with respect to ingress and egress of Sps Mamarils
vehicle were coordinated only with AIB and its security guards,
without the knowledge and consent of BSP. Hence, the loss
shall be borne by security guards and AIB.
Sps claim that the clause Management shall not be
responsible.. was void for being a contract of adhesion since,
suffice it to state that these contracts are not void per se.
Binding as any ordinary contract and a party who enters into it
is free to reject the stipulations. If terms are accepted without
any objection, in this case, Sps Mamaril have been leasing on
BSPs parking space for more or less 20 years, then the
contract serves as the law between them.
Award of damages DELETED.
Petition DENIED.