YHT Realty v.
CA
G.R. No. 126780. February 17, 2005
Tinga, J.
FACTS:
 McLoughlin is an Australian businessman-philanthropist
who used to stay at the Sheraton Hotel during his trips
to the Philippines prior to 1984.
 He met Tan who befriended him and showed him
around. Tan convinced Mcloughlin to transfer to the
Tropicana from the Sheraton where afterwards he
stayed during his trips from Dec 1984 to Sept 1987.
 On 30 Oct 1987, McLoughlin arrived from Australia and
registered with Tropicana. He rented a safety deposit
box as his usual practice.
 The box required two keys, the guest had one and one
from the management. He placed:
 US $10,000 in one envelope and US$5,000 in
another;
 AU$10,000 in another envelope;
 Other envelopes with his passport and credit cards
 On 12 Dec 1987, he took from the box the envelope
with US$5,000 and the one with AU$10,000 to go to
Hong Kong for a short visit, because he was not
checking out.
 When he arrived in HK, the envelope with US$5,000
only contained US$3,000, but because he had no idea
if the safety deposit box has been tampered, he thought
it was just bad accounting.
 After returning to Manila, he checked out of the
Tropicana in 1987 and left for Australia. When he
arrived he discovered that the envelope with
US$10,000 was short of US$5,000. He also noticed
that the jewelry he bought in Hong Kong which he
stored in the safety deposit box upon his return to
Tropicana was likewise missing, except for a diamond
bracelet.
 He went back to the Philippines in 1988 and asked
Lainez (who had custody of the management key) if
some money was missing or returned to her, to which
the latter answered there was not.
 He again registered at the Tropicana and rented a
safety deposit box. He placed an envelope containing:
the consummation of the taking, unless the reason for the loss
 US$15,000, another of AU$10,000
 On 16 Apr, he opened his safety deposit box and
noticed that US$2,000 and AU$4,500 was missing from
the envelopes.
 He immediately confronted Lainez and Payam who
admitted that Tan opened the safety deposit box with
the key assigned to McLoughlin. McLoughlin went up to
his room where Tan was staying and confronted her.
Tan admitted that she had stolen McLoughlin’s key and
was able to open the safety deposit box with the
assistance of Lopez, Payam and Lainez. Lopez also
told McLoughlin that Tan stole the key assigned to
McLoughlin while the latter was asleep.
 McLoughlin requested the management for an
investigation of the incident. Lopez got in touch with
Tan and arranged for a meeting with the police and
McLoughlin. When the police did not arrive, Lopez and
Tan went to the room of McLoughlin at Tropicana and
thereat, Lopez wrote on a piece of paper a promissory
note. He made Lopez and Tan sign a promissory note
for him for the loss.
 Lopez refused liability on behalf of the hotel,
reasoning that McLoughlin signed an "Undertaking
for the Use of Safety Deposit Box" which disclaims
any liability of the hotel for things put inside the
box.
 McLoughlin filed an action against YHT Realty
Corporation, Lopez, Lainez, Payam and Tan.
 The RTC rendered judgment in favor of McLoughlin. The
CA modified only the amount of damages awarded.
ISSUE:
1. Is the hotel solidarily liable for the act of its employees
in this case? YES
2. May the hotel evade liability for the loss of items
deposited for safekeeping by its guests, by having
these guests execute written waivers holding the
establishment or its employees free from blame for
such loss? NO
HELD:
1.
The evidence reveals that two keys are required to open the safety
deposit boxes of Tropicana. One key is assigned to the guest while
the other remains in the possession of the management. If the
guest desires to open his safety deposit box, he must request the
management for the other key to open the same. Thus, it is
inevitable to conclude that the management had at least a hand in
is force majeure.
Payam and Lainez, even admitted that they assisted Tan on
three separate occasions in opening McLoughlins safety deposit
box. This only proves that Tropicana had prior knowledge that a
person aside from the registered guest had access to the safety
deposit box. Yet the management failed to notify McLoughlin of the
incident and waited for him to discover the taking before it disclosed
the matter to him. Therefore, Tropicana should be held responsible
for the damage suffered by McLoughlin by reason of the negligence
of its employees.
Under Article 1170 of the New Civil Code, those who, in the
performance of their obligations, are guilty of negligence, are liable
for damages. As to who shall bear the burden of paying damages,
Article 2180, paragraph (4) of the same Code provides that
the owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise
are likewise responsible for damages caused by their
employees in the service of the branches in which the latter
are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Thus, given the fact that the loss of McLoughlins money was
consummated through the negligence of Tropicana’s employees in
allowing Tan to open the safety deposit box without the guests
consent, both the assisting employees and YHT Realty Corporation
itself, as owner and operator of Tropicana, should be held solidarily
liable pursuant to Article 2193.
2.
“Art. 2003. 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
responsibility of the former as set forth in Articles 1998 to
2001 is suppressed or diminished shall be void.”
In the case at bar, the responsibility of securing the safety
deposit box was shared not only by the guest himself but also by
the management since two keys are necessary to open the safety
deposit box. Thus, Tropicana was guilty of concurrent negligence
in allowing Tan, who was not the registered guest, to open the
safety deposit box of McLoughlin.
Petitioners contend that McLoughlin’s case was mounted on
the theory of contract, but the trial court and the appellate court
upheld the grant of the claims of the latter on the basis of tort. There
is nothing anomalous in how the lower courts decided the
controversy for this Court has pronounced a jurisprudential rule that
tort liability can exist even if there are already contractual relations.
The act that breaks the contract may also be tort.