You are on page 1of 2

TRIPLE-V V FILIPINO MERCHANTS

Facts: 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.

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.

ISSUE: WON petitioner is liable for the loss of the subject vehicle?

RULING: 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.

You might also like