TRIPLE-V vs.

FILIPINO MERCHANTS
G.R. No. 160544. February 21, 2005

CONCEPCION, J.:

DOCTRINE: 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

FACTS:
 Mary Jo-Anne De Asis dined at petitioner’s Kamayan Restaurant.
 De Asis was using a Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon Model 1995 issued by her employer Crispa Textile
Inc.,
 On said date, De Asis availed of the valet parking service of petitioner and entrusted her car key to
petitioner’s valet counter.
o Afterwards, a certain Madridano, valet attendant, noticed that the car was not in the parking slot
and its key is no longer in the box where valet attendants usually keep the keys of cars
entrusted to them.
o The car was never recovered.
 Thereafter, Crispa filed a claim against its insurer, herein respondent Filipino Merchants Insurance
Company Inc.
 Having indemnified Crispa for 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 Services Inc.,
 Petitioner claimed that the complaint failed to adduce facts to support the allegations of recklessness
and negligence committed in the safekeeping and custody of the subject vehicle.
 Besides, when De Asis availed the free parking stub which contained a waiver of the petitioner’s liability
in case of loss, she hereby waived her rights.
 RTC and CA: Triple V Foods is liable

ISSUE: WON petitioner Triple V Food Services Inc. is liable for the loss of the valet-parked car? YES.

FALLO: WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE.

HELD:
 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..
 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.
 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.
 Specious is petitioner's insistence that the valet parking claim stub it issued to De Asis contains a clear
exclusion of its liability and operates as an explicit waiver by the customer of any right to claim
indemnity for any loss of or damage to the vehicle.
o The parking claim stub 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