Topic: Deposits 2. Should Tripple-V be liable for the loss of the car?

Case No.: G.R. No. 160544. February 21, 2005

Case Name: TRIPLE-V vs. FILIPINO MERCHANTS
Full Case Name: Triple-V Food Services, Inc. vs. Filipino Merchants Insurance
Company, Inc.
Ponente: Third Division
Doctrine:
Digest Writer: Jac
Nature: Resolution
RELEVANT FACTS
On March 2, 1997, at around 2:15 o'clock in the afternoon, a certain Mary Jo-Anne
De Asis (De Asis) dined at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant at 15 West Avenue,
Quezon City. She drove in with a Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon, assigned to her by
her employer Crispa Textile Inc. (Crispa) and availed of the valet parking in the
premises. Few minutes later, the 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 was never recovered.
Yes. The parking claim stub 1 embodying the terms and conditions of the parking,
including that of relieving petitioner from any loss or damage to the car, is
essentially a contract of adhesion, drafted and prepared as it is by the petitioner
alone with no participation whatsoever on the part of the customers, like De Asis,
who merely adheres to the printed stipulations therein appearing. While contracts
of adhesion are not void in themselves, yet this Court will not hesitate to rule out
blind adherence thereto if they prove to be one-sided under the attendant facts and
circumstances. Petitioner must not be allowed to use its parking claim stub's
exclusionary stipulation as a shield from any responsibility for any loss or damage
to vehicles or to the valuables contained therein.
DISPOSITIVE
WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE.

As the car was insured, Crispa was able to claim P669,500 from Filipino Merchants
Insurance, hence the subrogation in this case.

ISSUES/RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Was there a contract of deposit?

Yes. When De Asis entrusted the car in question to petitioners valet attendant while
eating at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant, the former expected the car's safe return
at the end of her meal. Thus, petitioner was constituted as a depositary of the same
car. Petitioner cannot 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 free valet parking service.

In a contract of deposit, a person receives an object belonging to another with the

obligation of safely keeping it and returning the same. A deposit may be constituted
even without any consideration. It is not necessary that the depositary receives a
fee before it becomes obligated to keep the item entrusted for safekeeping and to
return it later to the depositor. 1 De Asis received a parking ticket whereunder it is so provided that "[Management and staff
will not be responsible for any loss of or damage incurred on the vehicle nor of valuables
contained therein"