Triple-V vs.

Filipino Merchants
FACTS: 1.) Mary Jo-Anne De Asis ate at Kamayan Restaurant. She
drove a car which was assigned to her by her employer Crispa Textile
Inc. (Crispa). She availed of the valet parking service of petitioner.
2.) The car was parked by valet attendant, Madridano. A few minutes
later, they noticed that the car was gone and its key is no longer in the
box where valet attendants usually keep the keys of cars entrusted to
them.
3.) The car was never recovered so Crispa filed a claim against its
insurer, resp. Filipino Merchants Insurance Company (FMICI).
P669,500 was given for the loss of the car.
4.) As a subrogee to Crispas rights, FMICI filed an action for
damages against petitioner Triple-V Food Services.
5.) Petitioner argued that the complaint failed to support allegations of
recklessness and negligence committed in the safekeeping and
custody of the car. They also said that the parking ticket provided an
explicit waiver of any right to claim indemnity for the loss of the car,
and that De Asis knowingly assumed the risk of loss.
6.) RTC ruled in favor of FMICI and ordered Triple V to pay so Triple V
appealed to the CA saying that it was not a depositary of the car and
that it exercised due diligence and prudence
7.) CA affirmed RTC saying that petitioner was a depositary and it
was negligent in its duties as a depositary and as an employer of the
valet attendant
ISSUE: WON Triple V was a depositary and WON it was negligent
HELD: Yes, Yes
RATIO: 1. When De Asis entrusted her car, she expected its safe
return. Thus, petitioner was constituted as a depositary of the same
car and cannot evade liability even if she availed of its free valet
parking service.
2. 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.

3. The waiver a contract of adhesion. Petitioner must not be allowed

to use its exclusionary stipulation as a shield from liability. A safe
parking space is an added attraction to the restaurant. Having said
that, customers fully expects the security of their car while dining.
Note: There was valid subrogation of rights between Crispa and
FMICI. Theft was covered in the insurance. RTC and CA ruling
affirmed.
YHT Realty Corp. v. CA
FACTS: 1.) Private respondent McLoughlin, an Australian
businessman-philanthropist, used to stay at Sheraton Hotel during his
trips to the Phil. prior to 1984 when he met Tan. She befriended him,
showed him around, introduced him to important people,
accompanied him in visiting and helping street children.
2.) Tan convinced McLoughlin to transfer to Tropicana Hotel where
Lainez, Payam (custodian of safety deposit boxes) and Lopez
(manager) was employed. It was also Tan who booked the hotel for
McLoughlins 1984-1987 trips.
3.) Having a practice of renting safety deposit boxes during his trips,
he rented one in Tropicana. He knew that the box could only be
opened with 2 keys (1 given to the guest, and 1 in the possession of
the management). Only the guest, himself, could request the
management to accompany the him and assist in opening the safety
deposit box with the 2 keys.
4.) McLoughlin allegedly placed US$15k [contained in 2 envelopes: 1
with 10k and another with 5k], AUS$10k, credit cards, etc.
5.) He didnt check out when he went for a short trip in HK so he just
left his belongings in the box. He only brought with him the envelope
containing US$5k, AUS$10k, passports and credit cards.
6.) He found out that only US$3k was in the envelope but thought that
it was just a result of bad accounting.
7.) When he got back, he checked the other envelopes and
discovered that only US$5k was remaining from the one that
supposedly contained US$10k and that jewelries were missing.

8.) He checked in at the hotel again in 1988, and a similar incident

happened. This time, he immediately confronted Lainez and Payam
who admitted that Tan opened the safety deposit box.
9.) Upon knowing this, McLoughin went to his room where Tan was
staying and confronted her. Tan admitted that she had stolen the key
while he was sleeping and was able to open the box with assistance
of Lopez, Payam and Lainez.
10.) Then, Lopez wrote a promissory note promising to pay
McLoughin the missing money, and requested Tan to sign the note.
However, McLoughin insists that it must be the hotel who must
assume responsibility. Lopez refuses to accept liability saying that
there was an Undertaking for the Use of Safety Deposit Box which
explicitly releases Tropicana from any liability from loss in the
contents of the deposit boxes for any cause whatsoever.
11.) Thus, McLoughin filed a complaint. RTC ruled in favor of him. CA
affirmed.
ISSUE: WON the undertaking exempts Tropicana or its employees
from liability NO
WON Tropicana is negligent -- YES
RATIO: 1. The Undertaking was found to be null and void. (Art. 2003)
Catering to the public, hotel-keepers are bound to provide not only

lodging but also security to their guests and their belongings. Art.
2003 provides that a 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. The hotel business is like the
common carriers business which is imbued with public interest.
2. Mere close companionship and intimacy are not enough to warrant
the conclusion that a hotel guest and his companion are husband and
wife. It is no excuse for the hotel to have allowed the latter to open the
safety deposit box of the former.
3. Hotel employees and the owner and operator are solidarily liable
where there is a loss of a guests money through the negligence of an
employee in allowing the companion of said guest to open the safety
deposit box w/o guests consent. (Art. 1170, 2180, 2193 NCC)
4. Petitioners defense invoking Art. 2002 of the CC is invalid. The
exemption of a hotel keeper from liability if the loss is due to the acts
of his guest, family, or visitors presupposes that the hotel keeper is
not guilty of negligencea depositary is not responsible for the loss
of goods by theft unless his actionable negligence contributes to the
loss.
5. Tropicana is guilty of concurrent negligence in allowing Tan who
was not the registered guest to open the safety deposit box.
6.) RTC and CA affirmed.