Generally, the Civil Code provides that the depositary (Respondent Bank)
CA Agro-Industrial vs CA, G.R. No. 90027 March 3, 1993
Facts
Petitioner (through its President) purchased 2 parcels of land from spouses Pugao
for P350 K with a downpayment of P75 K.
Per agreement, the land titles will be transferred upon full payment and will be
placed in a safety deposit box (SBDB) of any bank. Moreover, the same could be
withdrawn only upon the joint signatures of a representative of the Petitioner and
the Pugaos upon full payment of the purchase price.
Thereafter, Petitioner and spouses placed the titles in SDB of Respondent Security
Bank and signed a lease contract which substantially states that the Bank will not
assume liability for the contents of the SDB.
Subsequently, 2 renter's keys were given to the renters one to the Petitioner and
the other to the Pugaos. A guard key remained in the possession of the Respondent
Bank. The SDB can only be opened using these 2 keys simultaneously.
Afterwards, a certain Mrs. Ramos offered to buy from the Petitioner the 2 lots that
would yield a profit of P285K.
Mrs. Ramos demanded the execution of a deed of sale which necessarily entailed
the production of the certificates of title. Thus, Petitioner with the spouses went to
Respondent Bank to retrieve the titles.
However, when opened in the presence of the Bank's representative, the SDB
yielded no such certificates.
Because of the delay in the reconstitution of the title, Mrs. Ramos withdrew her
earlier offer to purchase the lots; as a consequence, the Petitioner allegedly failed
to realize the expected profit of P285K.
Hence, Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against Respondent Bank.
Lower courts ruled in favour of Respondent Bank. Thus, this petition.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the disputed contract is an ordinary contract of lease?
2. Whether or not the provisions of the cited contract are valid?
3. Whether or not Respondent Bank is liable for damages?
Ruling:
1. No. SC ruled that it is a special kind of deposit because:
the full and absolute possession and control of the SDB was not given to the
joint renters the Petitioner and the Pugaos.
The guard key of the box remained with the Respondent Bank; without this key,
neither of the renters could open the box and vice versa.
In this case, the said key had a duplicate which was made so that both renters
could have access to the box.
Moreover, the renting out of the SDBs is not independent from, but related to or
in conjunction with, the principal function of a contract of deposit the receiving
in custody of funds, documents and other valuable objects for safekeeping.
2. NO. SC opined that it is void.
would be liable if, in performing its obligation, it is found guilty of fraud,
negligence, delay or contravention of the tenor of the agreement.
In the absence of any stipulation, the diligence of a good father of a family is to
be observed.
Hence, any stipulation exempting the depositary from any liability arising
from the loss of the thing deposited on account of fraud, negligence or delay
would be void for being contrary to law and public policy (which is present in
the disputed contract)
Said provisions are inconsistent with the Respondent Bank's responsibility as
a depositary under Section 72(a) of the General Banking Act.
3. NO. SC ruled that:
no competent proof was presented to show that Respondent Bank was aware
of the private agreement between the Petitioner and the Pugaos that the Land
titles were withdrawable from the SDB only upon both parties' joint
signatures,
and that no evidence was submitted to reveal that the loss of the certificates of
title was due to the fraud or negligence of the Respondent Bank.
CHAN v MACEDA
Bonifacio Maceda Jr, obtained a 7.3M loan from DBP for the construction of his
New Gran Hotel Project.
Maceda then had a construction contract with Moreman Builders. Maceda bought
construction materials and equipments which Moreman deposited in the
warehouse of Wilson and Liliy Chan free of charge.
Due to Moremans failure to complete the project, Maceda filed a case for
rescission and damages against them. RTC ruled in favor of Maceda. While
pending appeal in CA, Maceda demanded from the Chans the deposited
materials but Chan said that these materials had already been withdrawn by
Moreman in 1977.
Thus, Maceda now filed a an action for damages and preliminary attachment
against the Chans. After four years, the RTC dismissed the case for failure to
prosecute. Five years after, a motion for reconsideration was filed but was denied
by RTC. On appeal, the RTC granted the MFR.
Chan filed a motion to dismiss, while Maceda filed a motion to declare Chan in
default.
RTC declared Chan in default. CA affirmed the decision. Thus on the RTC, Maceda
presented his witnesses to show that indeed bags of cement were deposited in
the warehouse of Chan. RTC then ruled in favor of Maceda. RTC stated that since
the bags were stored by Moreman builders without any lien or encumbrance,
Chan was duty bound to release it. CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE:
1.) WON procedural infirmities should have been a ground to dismiss the case
2.) WON there was a contract of deposit
HELD/RATIO:
1.) Yes
The original MFR was filed 5 years after the decision, thus far beyond the 15 day
reglementary period. This is a gross error on the part of the trial court.
2.) No
In a contract of deposit, the burden of proof on proving the contract is on the
plaintiff. In the case at hand, the record is bereft of any contract of deposit
between the parties. The delivery receipts presented also lack probative value so
as to prove the existence of the contract for they are unsigned and not duly
authenticated by Moreman or by Maceda. Moreover, Maceda also failed to prove
that there were construction materials and equipment in petitioners' warehouse at
the time he made a demand for their return
In relation to the claim of damages, actual damages must be proven with a
reasonable degree of certainty, which in this case, Maceda failed to present.
TRIPLE-V FOOD SERVICES INC. vs. FILIPINO MERCHANTS INSURANCE
COMPANY, GR. No. 160554, February 21, 2005
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. Afterwards, a certain Madridano,
valet attendant, noticed that the car was not in its parking slot and its key no longer in
the box where valet attendants usually keep the keys of cars entrusted to them. 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 stab which contained
a waiver of petitioners liability in case of loss, she had thereby waived her rights.
ISSUE: WON petitioner Triple-V Food Services, Inc. is liable for the loss.
HELD: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. 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.
On March 2, 1997, at around 2:15 o'clock in the afternoon, a certain Mary
Jo-Anne De Asis (De Asis) dined at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant at 15
West Avenue, Quezon City. De Asis was using a Mitsubishi Galant Super
Saloon Model 1995 with plate number UBU 955, assigned to her by her
employer Crispa Textile Inc. (Crispa). On said date, De Asis availed of the
valet parking service of petitioner and entrusted her car key to
petitioner's valet counter. A corresponding parking ticket was issued as
receipt for the car. The car was then parked by petitioner's valet
attendant, a certain Madridano, at the designated parking area. Few
minutes later, Madridano noticed that the car was not in its parking slot
and its key no longer in the box where valet attendants usually keep the
keys of cars entrusted to them. The car was never recovered.
V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
Crispa filed a claim against its insurer, herein respondent FMICI.
Having indemnified Crispa in the amount of P669.500 for the loss of the
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.
In its answer, petitioner argued that the complaint failed to aver facts to
support the allegations of recklessness and negligence committed in the
safekeeping and custody of the vehicle, claiming that it and its employees
wasted no time in ascertaining the loss of the car and in informing De
Asis of the discovery of the loss. Petitioner further argued that in
accepting the complimentary valet parking service, De Asis received a
parking ticket whereunder it is so provided that "Management and staff
will not be responsible for any loss of or damage incurred on the vehicle
nor of valuables contained therein", a provision which, to petitioner's
mind, is 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 when she
allowed petitioner to park her vehicle, adding that its valet parking
service did not include extending a contract of insurance or warranty for
the loss of the vehicle. The RTC ruled in favor of FMICI. Seeking relief
from the CA, petitioner appealed, but to no avail, hence the recourse with
the Supreme Court.
VI. ISSUE:
 1. WON petitioner is liable for the loss of the subject vehicle?
VII. RULING:
1. The SC ruled in the affirmative. 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. Furthermore, 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.
DURBAN APARTMENTS VS PIONEER INSURANCE
In DURBAN APARTMENTS CORPORATION doing business under the name and
style of City Garden Hotel vs. PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION,
G.R. No. 179419 (January 12, 2011), the Supreme Court passed upon the liability
of hotels for providing valet parking to guests.
This arose after a hotel guest, and Pioneers insured, checked into the City Garden
hotel in Makati. The hotels parking attendant and co-defendant got the keys to
the guests vehicle and parked it an adjacent lot owned by a third party. The guest
was subsequently awakened so as to be advised that his car had been taken. The
guest made the necessary reports and thereafter filed a claim for insurance with
Pioneer which paid the same as indemnity for the vehicles loss. Pioneer alleged
that the loss was an offshoot of the hotels negligence and accordingly filed a claim
by means of subrogation, against the hotel and its parking valet. It was established
that there was a previous similar incident and yet no no necessary precautions
were taken to prevent its repetition xxx. Pioneer argued that the hotel was was
wanting in due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees
particularly its parking valet.
On a procedural note, Pioneer was allowed to present evidence ex parte in view of
the hotels failure to file a pre-trial brief and to appear at pre-trial.
The Hotel argued that the insured was not a guest of the hotel but a visitor
therein, that its valet did not get his keys but it was the insured who requested
him to find a space wherever one was available, that valet parking was provided
for convenience of its customers and that it was a special privilege that was given
to the insured. The vehicle was taken without using the key which was even
turned over to the owner. Its valet even tried to run after the carnappers to no
avail.
The guest testified that he drove his vehicle in front of the hotel where the
parking attendant approached and asked him for his key, and issued a valet
parking customers claim stub. He then checked in at the hotel with a
companion. At around 1 a.m., he was advised of the carnapping incident. An
adjuster testified that based on his investigation, the hotel would assist guests in
parking, and with only 12 parking slots, entered into an agreement with an
adjacent bank to use the latters space at night. He discovered that a van had been
carnapped from the same lot barely a month before.
The lower court ruled in favor of Pioneer and ordered Durban to pay the sum of
P1,163,250.00 with legal interest thereon from July 22, 2003 until the obligation is
fully paid and attorneys fees and litigation expenses amounting to P120,000.00.
This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The High Court upheld the ruling that the hotel was in default for failure to
appear at the pre-trial conference and to file a pre-trial brief, and thus, correctly
allowed respondent to present evidence ex-parte. It also affirmed the finding
that it was liable for the loss of the vehicle. The procedural aspect will not be dealt
with in detail here.
Despite the finding of default, the Supreme Court emphasized that defendants
(petitioners) preclusion from presenting evidence during trial does not
automatically result in a judgment in favor of plaintiff (respondent). The plaintiff
must still substantiate the allegations in its complaint.
It found that the allegations of Pioneer in the complaint were substantiated, i.e.,
a contract of necessary deposit existed between the insured xxx and petitioner. On
this score, we find no error in the following disquisition of the appellate court:
[The] records also reveal that upon arrival at the City Garden Hotel, See gave
notice to the doorman and parking attendant of the said hotel, x x x Justimbaste,
about his Vitara when he entrusted its ignition key to the latter. x x x Justimbaste
issued a valet parking customer claim stub to See, parked the Vitara at the
Equitable PCI Bank parking area, and placed the ignition key inside a safety key box
while See proceeded to the hotel lobby to check in. The Equitable PCI Bank parking
area became an annex of City Garden Hotel when the management of the said
bank allowed the parking of the vehicles of hotel guests thereat in the evening
after banking hours.
Interesting is the finding that the banks parking area was deemed an annex to
the hotel. A hotels use of an adjacent lot appears to subject the same to its
control.
The Court cited Article 1962, in relation to Article 1998, of the Civil Code:
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 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.
Art. 1998. The deposit of effects made by travelers in hotels or inns shall also be
regarded as necessary. The keepers of hotels or inns shall be responsible for them
as depositaries, provided that notice was given to them, or to their employees, of
the effects brought by the guests and that, on the part of the latter, they take the
precautions which said hotel-keepers or their substitutes advised relative to the
care and vigilance of their effects.
The insured deposited the vehicle for safekeeping with the hotel, through its
employee. This employee issued a claim stub to the insured. The contract of
deposit was perfected from the delivery of the vehicle, when the keys were
handed over to the hotels employee, and which he received with the obligation
of safely keeping and returning it.
This could conceivably be used as basis for users of mall and other public parking
lots to claim indemnity for loss or damage to their vehicles. It would be interesting
to see if the practice of placing disclaimers of liability in the parking stub, as well as
in signages, would be upheld by the courts as binding on the users. It does stand to
reason that when you are made to park and pay, parking lot providers owe a
degree of care to insure your vehicle is kept safe and sound. And if they fail to
adhere to this standard, then they should be sorry they didnt, as in this case.
Durban Apartments Corporation v Pioneer Insurance and Surety
Facts: Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation, by right of subrogation, filed a
Complaint for Recovery of Damages against Durban Apartment Corporation.
Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation is the insurer of Jeffrey S. See,s 2001
Suzuki Grand Vitara. Loss occured when Sees Vitara was carnapped while it was in
the possession of petitioner Durban Apartment Hotel.
Issue: WON there exist a contract of deposit
Held: there exist a contract of necessary deposit
Article 1962, in relation to Article 1998, of the Civil Code defines a contract
of deposit and a necessary deposit made by persons in hotels or inns:
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 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.
Art. 1998. The deposit of effects made by travelers in
hotels or inns shall also be regarded as necessary. The keepers of
hotels or inns shall be responsible for them as depositaries,
provided that notice was given to them, or to their employees, of
the effects brought by the guests and that, on the part of the latter,
they take the precautions which said hotel-keepers or their
substitutes advised relative to the care and vigilance of their
effects.
Facts shows that the contract of depost was perfected from Sees delivery, when
he handed over to Justimbaste the keys to his vehicle, which Justimbaste receive
with the obligation of the safely keeping and returning it. Evidence was show that
Justimbaste issued a valet parking customer claim stub.
YHT REALTY CORPORATION VS. CA, GR. No. 126780, February 17, 2005
FACTS: Maurice Mcloughlin is an Australian philanthropist, businessman, and a tourist.
In his various trips from Australia going to different countries, one of which is the
Philippines, he would stay in Tropicana Inn which is owned by YHT Realty Corp. After
series of transactions with the inn as depositary of his belongings, he noticed that his
money and several jewelries would be either reduced or lost. He then decided to file an
action against Tropicana and its innkeepers. However, the latter argued that they have
no liability with regard to the loss by virtue of the undertaking signed by Mcloughlin.
Such undertaking is a waiver of the inns liability in case of any loss. The RTC and CA
both decided that such undertaking is null and void as contrary to
the express provisions of the law. Hence, the petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject undertaking is null and void
HELD: The court ruled in the affirmative. Art. 2003 of the Civil Code provides that, the
hotelkeeper 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.
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 guests 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.

YHT Realty v. CA

FACTS:
Respondent McLoughlin would 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 checkbook.
When he went abroad, 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 McLouglins key and was able to open the safety deposit box with the
assistance of Lopez, Paiyam and Lainez. Lopez alsto told McLoughlin that 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: Whether the hotels Undertaking is valid?

HELD: NO
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 carriers business is imbued with public
interest. Catering to the public, hotelkeepers are bound 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