CA Agro-Industrial Development Corporation vs CA GR
No. 90027. March 3, 1993
Facts:
CA Agro (through its President, Aguirre) and
spouses Pugao entered into an agreement whereby the
former purchased two parcels of land for P350, 525 with
a P75, 725 down payment while the balance was covered
by three (3) postdated checks. Among the terms
embodied in a Memorandum of True and Actual
Agreement of Sale of Land were that titles to the lots
shall be transferred to the petitioner upon full payment
of the purchase price and that the owner’s copies of the
certificates of titles thereto shall be deposited in a safety
deposit box of any bank. The same could be withdrawn
only upon the joint signatures of a representative of the
petitioner upon full payment of the purchase price. They
then rented Safety Deposit box of private respondent
Security Bank and Trust Company (SBTC). For this
purpose, both signed a contract of lease which contains
the following conditions:
13. The bank is not a depositary of the contents of the
safe and it has neither the possession nor control of the
same.
14. The bank has no interest whatsoever in said contents,
except herein expressly provided, and it assumes
absolutely no liability in connection therewith.
After the execution of the contract, two (2) renter’s key
were given to Aguirre, and Pugaos. A key guard remained
with the bank. The safety deposit box has two key holes
and can be opened with the use of both keys. Petitioner
claims that the CTC were placed inside the said box.
Thereafter, a certain Mrs. Ramos offered to buy from the
petitioner the two (2) lots at a price of P225 per sqm.
Mrs. Ramose demanded the execution of a deed of sale
which necessarily entailed the production of the CTC.
Aguirre and Pugaos then proceeded to the bank to open
the safety deposit box. However, when opened in the
presence of bank’s representative, the box yielded no
certificates. Because of the delay in reconstitution of
title, Mrs. Ramos withdrew her earlier offer and as a
consequence petitioner failed to realize the expected
profit of P280 , 500. Hence, the latter filed a complaint
for damages.
RTC: Dismissed the complaint
CA: Affirmed
Issue:
Whether or not the contractual relation between a
commercial bank and another party in the contract of
rent of a safety deposit box is one of bailor and bailee.
Ruling:
Yes.
The contract in the case at bar is a special kind of
deposit. It cannot be characterized as an ordinary
contract of lease under Article 1643 because the full and
absolute possession and control of the safety deposit box
was not given to the joint renters – the petitioner and
Pugaos.
American Jurisprudence:
The prevailing rule is that the relation between a
bank renting out safe-deposit boxes and its customer
with respect to the contents of the box is that of a bail or
bailee, the bailment being for hire and mutual benefit.
Our provisions on safety deposit boxes are
governed by Section 72 (a) of the General Banking Act,
and this primary function is still found within the
parameters of a contract of deposit like the receiving in
custody of funds, documents and other valuable objects
for safekeeping. The renting out of the safety deposit
boxes is not independent from, but related to or in
conjunction with, this principal function. Thus,
depositary’s liability is governed by our civil code rules on
obligation and contracts, and thus the SBTC would be
liable if, in performing its obligation, it is found guilty of
fraud, negligence, delay or contravention of the tenor of
the agreement.
The Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro vs. Gregorio De La
PeÑa March 17, 2016 G.R. No. L-6913
FACTS:
In 1898 Fr. De la Peña assigned as trustee of the sum of
P6,641, collected by him for the charitable purposes he
deposited in his personal account P19,000 in the
Hongkong and Shanghai Bank at Iloilo. During the war of
the revolution, Father De la Peña was arrested by the
military authorities as a political prisoner. The arrest of
Father De la Peña and the confiscation of the funds in the
bank were the result of the claim of the military
authorities that he was an insurgent and that the funds
deposited had been collected by him is for revolutionary
purposes. The money was taken from the bank by the
military authorities by virtue of such order, was
confiscated and turned over to the Government.
ISSUES:
Whether or not Father De la Peña is liable for the loss of
the funds?
RULLING:
No, he is not liable because there is no negligent act on
the part of Fr. De la Peña. It was so happened that during
that time the money was taken from him by the U.S.
military forces which is unforeseen event. Although the
Civil Code states that “a person obliged to give
something is also bound to preserve it with the diligence
pertaining to a good father of a family”, it also provides,
following the principle of the Roman law that “no one
shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or
which having been foreseen were inevitable, with the
exception of the cases expressly mentioned in the law or
those in which the obligation so declares.”
YHT Realty Corporation, Erlinda Lainez & Anicia Payam
vs. The Court of Appeals & Maurice McLoughlin
FACTS
Respondent McLoughlin would always stay at Tropicana
Hotel every time he is here in the Philippines and would
rent a safety deposit box. The safety deposit box could
only be opened through the use of 2 keys, one of which
is given to the registered guest, and the other remaining
in the possession of the management of the hotel.
Mcloughlin allegedly placed the following in his safety
deposit box – 2 envelopes containing US Dollars, one
envelope containing Australian Dollars, Letters, credit
cards, bankbooks and a check book. On 12 December
1987, before leaving for a brief trip, McLoughlin took
some items from the safety box which includes the ff:
envelope containing Five Thousand US Dollars
(US$5,000.00), the other envelope containing Ten
Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00), his
passports and his credit cards. The other items were left
in the deposit box. Upon arrival, he found out that a few
dollars were missing and the jewelry he bought was
likewise missing. Eventually, he confronted Lainez and
Paiyam who admitted that Tan opened the safety
deposit box with the key assigned to him. Mcloughlin
went up to his room where Tan was staying and
confronted her. Tan admitted that she had stolen
McLouglin’s key and was able to open the safety 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 he suffered. Lopez
refused to accept responsibility relying on the conditions
for renting the safety deposit box entitled “Undertaking
For the Use of Safety Deposit Box”
ISSUE
WON the “Undertaking for the Use of Safety Deposit
Box” admittedly executed by private respondent is null
and void.
HELD
YES Article 2003 was incorporated in the New Civil Code
as an expression of public policy precisely to apply to
situations such as that presented in this case. The hotel
business like the common 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 to the public to be negated
or diluted by any contrary stipulation in so-called
“undertakings” that ordinarily 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 or innkeeper liable for the effects
of their guests, it is not necessary that they be actually
delivered to the innkeepers or their employees. It is
enough that such effects are within the hotel or inn. With
greater reason should the liability of the hotelkeeper be
enforced when the missing items are taken without the
guest’s knowledge and consent from a safety deposit box
provided by the hotel itself, as in this case. Paragraphs
(2) and (4) of the “undertaking” manifestly contravene
Article 2003, CC for they allow Tropicana to be released
from liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or
use of the safety deposit box for any cause whatsoever.
Evidently, the undertaking was intended to bar any claim
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.
PNB v. Judge Benito C. Se, Jr. (256 SCRA 380)

Facts:
In accordance with Act No. 2137, the Warehouse
Receipts Law, Noah’s Ark Sugar Refinery issued on
several dates, 5 Warehouse Receipts (Quedans).

They were endorsed and negotiated to Ramos and

Zoleta. They failed to pay their loans upon maturity. So,
PNB wrote to Noah’s Ark Sugar Refinery demanding
delivery of the sugar stocks covered by the quedans
endorsed to it by Zoleta and Ramos.

Noah’s Ark Sugar Refinery refused. So, PNB filed a

complaint for “Specific Performance with Damages and
Application for Writ of Attachment”.

Respondent Judge Benito C. Se, Jr., in whose sala the case

was raffled, denied the Application for Preliminary
Attachment.

Issue:
Can the warehouseman enforce his warehouseman's lien
before delivering the sugar stocks as ordered by the
Court of Appeals or need he file a separate action to
enforce payment of storage fees?

Ruling:
A prior judgment holding that a party is a warehouseman
obligated to deliver sugar stocks covered by the
warehouse receipts does not necessarily carry with it a
denial of its lien over the same sugar stocks. Thus where
the judgment creditor (in this case PNB) makes an
unconditional presentment of warehouse receipts for
delivery of sugar stocks against the warehouseman
(Noah's Ark), it thereby admits the existence and validity
of the terms, conditions and stipulations written on the
face of the warehouse receipts, including the unqualified
recognition of the payment of warehouseman's lien for
storage fees and preservation expenses. Thus, PNB may
not retrieve the sugar stocks without paying the
warehouseman's lien. The warehouseman need not file
a separate action to enforce payment of storage fees. He
may enforce his lien before delivering the sugar stocks
covered by the warehouse receipt