YHT REALTY CORPORATION, ERLINDA LAINEZ and ANICIA PAYAM, petitioners VS.
of the hotelkeeper be enforced when the missing items aretaken without the
THE COURT OF APPEALS and MAURICE McLOUGHLIN, respondents.G.R. No.
126780
FACTS
Respondent McLoughlin would always stay at Tropicana Hotel every time he is here
in thePhilippines and would rent a safety deposit box. The safety deposit box could
only be openedthrough the use of 2 keys, one of which is given to the registered
guest, and the other remaining inthe possession of the management of the
hotel.McLoughlin allegedly placed the following in his safety deposit box – 2
envelopes containingUS Dollars, one envelope containing Australian Dollars,
Letters, credit cards, bankbooks and acheckbook.On 12 December 1987, before
leaving for a brief trip, McLoughlin took some items from thesafety box which
includes the ff: envelope containing Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000.00),
theother envelope containing Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00), his
passports and hiscredit cards. The other items were left in the deposit box. Upon
arrival, he found out that a fewdollars were missing and the jewelry he bought was
likewise missing.Eventually, he confronted Lainez and Paiyam who admitted that
Tan opened the safetydeposit box with the key assigned to him. McLoughlin went
up to his room where Tan was stayingand confronted her. Tan admitted that she
had stolen McLouglin’s key and was able to open thesafety deposit box with the
assistance of Lopez, Paiyam and Lainez. Lopez also told McLoughlinthat Tan stole
the key assigned to McLouglin while the latter was asleep.McLoughlin insisted that
it must be the hotel who must assume responsibility for the loss hesuffered. Lopez
refused to accept responsibility relying on the conditions for renting the
safetydeposit box entitled “Undertaking For the Use of Safety Deposit Box”
ISSUE
WON the “Undertaking for the Use of Safety Deposit Box” admittedly executed by
privaterespondent is null and void.
HELD
YES Article 2003 was incorporated in the New Civil Code as an expression of public
policyprecisely to apply to situations such as that presented in this case. The hotel
business like thecommon carrier’s business is imbued with public interest. Catering
to the public, hotelkeepers arebound 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 tothe public to be negated
or diluted by any contrary stipulation in so-called “undertakings” thatordinarily
appear in prepared forms imposed by hotel keepers on guests for
their signature.In an early case (De Los Santos v. Tan Khey), CA ruled that to hold
hotelkeepers orinnkeeper liable for the effects of their guests, it is not necessary
that they be actually delivered tothe innkeepers or their employees. It is enough
that such effects are within the hotel or inn. Withgreater reason should the liability
guest’s knowledge and consent from a safety deposit box provided by the
hotelitself, as in this case.Paragraphs (2) and (4) of the “undertaking” manifestly
contravene Article 2003, CC for theyallow Tropicana to be released from liability
arising from any loss in the contents and/or use of thesafety deposit box for any
cause whatsoever. Evidently, the undertaking was intended to bar anyclaim against
Tropicana for any loss of the contents of the safety deposit box whether or not
negligence was incurred by Tropicana or its employees. The New Civil Code is
explicit that the responsibility of the hotel-keeper shall extend to loss of, or injury
to, the personal property of the guests even if caused by servants or employees of
the keepers of hotels or inns as well as by strangers, except as it may proceed from
any force majeure.
BPI vs. IAC
L-66826, Aug. 19, 1988
Facts:
A contract of depositum was entered into by Garcia, on behalf of
COMTRUST (BPI), wherein he received US $3,000 (foreign exchange)
from Zshornack for safekeeping. Later on or over five months later,
Zshornack demanded the return of the money but the bank refused
alleging that the amount was sold and transferred to her current account.
Arguments:
COMTRUST (BPI): The parties entered into a contract of depositum
which banks do not enter into. Thus, Garcia exceeded his powers when he
entered into the contract on behalf of the bank, hence, the bank cannot be
liable under the contract.
Issue: WON the contract entered into is a contract of depositum.
Held:
Yes. The situation is one contemplated in Art. 1962 of the NCC:
Art. 1962. A deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a
thing belonging to another, with the obligation of safely keeping it and of
returning the same. If the safekeeping of the thing delivered is not the
principal purpose of the contract, there is no deposit but some other
contract.

Note: But because the subject of the contract here is a foreign exchange, it
is covered by Central Bank Circular No. 20 which requires that, “All
receipts of foreign exchange by any resident person, firm, company or
corporation shall be sold to authorized agents of the Central Bank by the
recipients within one business day following the receipt of such foreign
exchange.”

Since the document and the subsequent acts of the parties show that they
intended the bank to safekeep the foreign exchange, and return it later to
Zshornack, who alleged in his complaint that he is a Philippine resident,
the parties did not intend to sell the US dollars to the Central Bank within
one business day from receipt. Otherwise, the contract
of depositum would never have been entered into at all.

In other words, the transaction between Zshornack and the bank was void
having been executed against the provisions of a mandatory law (CB Circ
No. 20). Being in pari delicto, the law cannot afford either of them
remedy.