Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

TRIPLE-V FOOD SERVICES INC. vs.

FILIPINO MERCHANTS INSURANCE The Vitara was lost due to the negligence of Durban Apartments and Justimbaste
COMPANY, GR. No. 160554, February 21, 2005 because it was discovered during the investigation that this was the second time that a
similar incident of carnapping happened in the valet parking service and no necessary
FACTS: Mary Jo-Anne De Asis dined at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant. De Asis was precautions were taken to prevent its repetition. Durban Apartments was wanting in
using a Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon Model 1995 issued by her employer Crispa due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees particularly defendant
Textile Inc.. On said date, De Asis availed of the valet parking service of petitioner and Justimbaste. Both failed and refused to pay its valid, just, and lawful claim despite
entrusted her car key to petitioner's valet counter. Afterwards, a certain Madridano, written demands.
valet attendant, noticed that the car was not in its parking slot and its key no longer in
the box where valet attendants usually keep the keys of cars entrusted to them. The car ISSUE: Is petitioner liable for the loss of See’s vehicle?
was never recovered. Thereafter, Crispa filed a claim against its insurer, herein
respondent Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc. Having indemnified Crispa for RULING: Yes.
the loss of the subject vehicle, FMICI, as subrogee to Crispa's rights, filed
with the RTC at Makati City an action for damages against petitioner Triple-V Food Article 1962, in relation to Article 1998, of the Civil Code defines a contract of deposit
Services, Inc. Petitioner claimed that the complaint failed to adduce facts to support the and a necessary deposit made by persons in hotels or inns:
allegations of recklessness and negligence committed in the safekeeping and custody of
the subject vehicle. Besides, when De Asis availed the free parking stab which contained Art. 1962. A deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a thing belonging
a waiver of petitioner’s liability in case of loss, she had thereby waived her rights. to another, with the obligation of safely keeping it and returning the same. If the
safekeeping of the thing delivered is not the principal purpose of the contract, there is
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Triple-V Food Services, Inc. is liable for the loss. no deposit but some other contract.
Art. 1998. The deposit of effects made by travelers in hotels or inns shall also be
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. In a contract of deposit, a person regarded as necessary. The keepers of hotels or inns shall be responsible for them as
receives an object belonging to another with the obligation of safely keeping it and depositaries, provided that notice was given to them, or to their employees, of the
returning the same. A deposit may be constituted even without any consideration. It is effects brought by the guests and that, on the part of the latter, they take the
not necessary that the depositary receives a fee before it becomes obligated to keep the precautions which said hotel-keepers, or their substitu tes advised relative to the care
item entrusted for safekeeping and to return it later to the depositor. Petitioner cannot and vigilance of their effects.
evade liability by arguing that neither a contract of deposit nor that of insurance,
guaranty or surety for the loss of the car was constituted when De Asis availed of its Plainly, from the facts found by the lower courts, the insured See deposited his vehicle
free valet parking service. for safekeeping with petitioner, through the latter’s employee, Justimbaste. In turn,
Justimbaste issued a claim stub to See. Thus, the contract of deposit was perfected from
DURBAN APARTMENTS CORPORATION vs. PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY See’s delivery, when he handed over to Justimbaste the keys to his vehicle, which
CORPORATION Justimbaste received with the obligation of safely keeping and returning it. Ultimately,
G.R. No. 179419, January 12, 2011 petitioner is liable for the loss of See’s vehicle.

FACTS: July 22, 2003, Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp, by right of subrogation, filed YHT REALTY, LAINEZ, PAYAM V. CA AND MCLOUGHLIN
with the RTC of Makati a Complaint for Recovery of Damages against Durban G.R. No. 126780. February 17, 2005
Apartments Corp. (or City Garden Hotel) and defendant before the RTC, Vicente
Justimbaste. Respondent averred that it is the insurer for loss and damage of Jeffrey S.
Facts
See’s 2001 Suzuki Grand Vitara in the amount of P1,175,000.00. On April 30, 2002, See
arrived and checked in at the City Garden Hotel before midnight, and its parking
McLoughlin was an Australian businessman-philanthropist who met a certain
attendant, Justimbaste got the key to said Vitara from See to park it. On May 1, 2002, at Bhrunilda Mata – Tan and befriended him. Tan convinced McLoughlin to
about 1:00 am, See received a phone call where the Hotel Chief Security Officer transfer from Sheraton Hotel and stay at Tropicana Hotel during trips to the
informed him that his Vitara was carnapped while it was parked unattended at the Philippines. Petitioners Lainez, as manager, Payam and Danilo Lopez, had the
parking area of Equitable PCI Bank See went to see the Security Officer, thereafter custody of the keys for the safety deposit boxes, were all employees at
reported the incident to the Operations Division of the Makati City Police Anti- Tropicana. McLoughlin started staying at said Tropicana Hotel and registered
Carnapping Unit, and a flash alarm was issued. The police investigated Hotel Security therein from December 1984 to 1987. On October 30, 1987, McLoughlin
Officer, Ernesto T. Horlador, Jr. and Justimbaste. See gave his Sinumpaang Salaysay to arrived from Australia and registered with Tropicana. He rented a safety
the police investigator, and filed a Complaint Sheet with the PNP Traffic Management
deposit box which could only be opened through the use of 2 keys, one of
Group in Camp Crame. it paid the P1,163,250.00 money claim of See and mortgagee
ABN AMRO Savings Bank, Inc. as indemnity for the loss of the Vitara.
which is given to the registered guest, and the other remaining in the
possession of the management of the hotel. When a registered guest wished to
open his safety deposit box, he alone could personally request the management
who then would assign one of its employees to accompany the guest and assist innkeepers or their employees. It is enough that such effects are within the
him in opening the safety deposit box with the two keys. hotel or inn. With greater reason should the liability of the hotelkeeper be
enforced when the missing items are taken without the guest’s knowledge and
When McLoughlin went for a trip in Hong Kong and without checking out the consent from a safety deposit box provided by the hotel itself. The undertaking
hotel, he left some US and Australian dollars in the safety deposit box. Upon his manifestly contravened Article 2003 of the Civil Code it allowed Tropicana to
return, he went back to Australia; there he noticed that some USD5000 and be released from liability arising from any loss in the contents of the safety
jewelry he bought from Hong Kong were missing. When he came back to the deposit box for any cause whatsoever. Evidently, the undertaking was
Philippines, again registered and rented a safety deposit box with Tropicana, intended to bar any claim against Tropicana for any loss of the contents of the
placing therein some USD15000, AUD10000 and some important documents. safety deposit box whether or not negligence was incurred by Tropicana or its
He requested to open the safety deposit box, but he found out that USD2000, employees. The New Civil Code is explicit that the responsibility of the hotel-
and AUD4500 were missing. He confronted Lainez and Payam; they told him keeper shall extend to loss of, or injury to, the personal property of the guests
that Tan was able to open the safety deposit box. Tan admitted to the said even if caused by servants or employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well
actuation and added that she was assisted by Lainez, Lopez and Payam. Lopez as by strangers, except as it may proceed from any force majeure. It is the loss
wrote a PN and requested Tan to sign it, which the latter did. Despite the through force majeure that may spare the hotel-keeper from liability. In the
execution of the PN, McLoughlin insisted that it must be the hotel who must case at bar, there is no showing that the act of the thief or robber was done
assume responsibility for the loss he suffered. However, Lopez refused to with the use of arms or through an irresistible force to qualify the same as
accept the responsibility relying on the conditions for renting the deposit box, force majeure
which held free and blameless Tropicana for any loss in the contents of the
safety deposit box.

Issue
May a hotel evade liability for the loss of items left with it for safekeeping by its
guests, by having these guests execute written waivers holding the
establishment or its employees free from blame for such loss in light of Article
2003 of the Civil Code which voids such waivers?

Held
No. Petitioners were directed, jointly and severally, to pay private respondent.
Ratio
For the main issue:

Article 2003 provides that the hotel-keeper cannot free himself from
responsibility by posting notices to the effect that he is not liable for the
articles brought by the guest. Any stipulation between the hotel-keeper and the
guest whereby the reasonability of the former as set for the in articles 1998 to
2001 is suppressed or diminished shall be void. The hotel business like the
common carrier's business is imbued with public interest. Catering to the
public, hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging for hotel guests and
security to their persons and belongings. The twin duty constitutes the essence
of the business. The law in turn does not allow such duty to the public to be
negated or diluted by any contrary stipulation in so-called "undertakings" that
ordinarily appear in prepared forms imposed by hotel keepers on guests for
their signature.

In an early case, to hold hotel-keepers or innkeepers liable for the effects of


their guests, it is not necessary that they be actually delivered to the

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi