Triple V vs Fil Merchants : 160544 : February 21, 2005 : Atty Abjelina-Soriano : Third Division
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
Search
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review
DebtKollect Company, Inc.
http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/february/160544.php
02/07/2019, 11)00 PM
Custom Search Search
Home > Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2005 > Triple V vs Fil Merchants : 160544 :
February 21, 2005 : Atty Abjelina-Soriano : Third Division:
[G.R. No. 160544. February 21, 2005]
TRIPLE-V vs. FILIPINO MERCHANTS
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 21 2005.
G.R. No. 160544 (Triple-V Food Services, Inc. vs. Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc.)
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the decision[1] dated October 21, 2003 of the Court of
cralaw
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71223, affirming an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court at Makati City,
Branch 148, in its Civil Case No. 98-838, an action for damages thereat filed by respondent Filipino
Merchants Insurance, Company, Inc., against the herein petitioner, Triple-V Food Services, Inc.
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. Thereafter, Crispa filed a claim against its insurer, herein respondent
Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc. (FMICI). Having indemnified Crispa in the amount of
P669.500 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., thereat docketed as
Civil Case No. 98-838 which was raffled to Branch 148.
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 subject 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",
Page 1 of 4
Triple V vs Fil Merchants : 160544 : February 21, 2005 : Atty Abjelina-Soriano : Third Division 02/07/2019, 11)00 PM

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.

During trial, petitioner challenged FMICI's subrogation to Crispa's right to file a claim for the loss of the
car, arguing that theft is not a risk insured against under FMICI's Insurance Policy No. PC-5975 for the
subject vehicle.

In a decision dated June 22, 2001, the trial court rendered judgment for respondent FMICI, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff (FMICI) and
against the defendant Triple V (herein petitioner) and the latter is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff the
following:

1. The amount of P669,500.00, representing actual damages plus compounded (sic);

2. The amount of P30,000.00 as acceptance fee plus the amount equal to 25% of the total amount due
as attorney's fees;
ChanRobles Intellectual Property Division
3. The amount of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;

4. Plus, cost of suit.

Defendant Triple V is not therefore precluded from taking appropriate action against defendant Armando
Madridano.

SO ORDERED.

Obviously displeased, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals reiterating its argument that it was not
a depositary of the subject car and that it exercised due diligence and prudence in the safe keeping of
the vehicle, in handling the car-napping incident and in the supervision of its employees. It further
argued that there was no valid subrogation of rights between Crispa and respondent FMICI.

In a decision dated October 21, 2003,[2] the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal and affirmed
cralaw

the appealed decision of the trial court, thus:

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the
assailed June 22, 2001 Decision of the RTC of Makati City - Branch 148 in Civil Case No. 98-838 is
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

In so dismissing the appeal and affirming the appealed decision, the appellate court agreed with the
findings and conclusions of the trial court that: (a) petitioner was a depositary of the subject vehicle; (b)
petitioner was negligent in its duties as a depositary thereof and as an employer of the valet attendant;
and (c) there was a valid subrogation of rights between Crispa and respondent FMICI.

Hence, petitioner's present recourse.

We agree with the two (2) courts below.

When De Asis entrusted the car in question to petitioners valet attendant while eating at petitioner's
Kamayan Restaurant, the former expected the car's safe return at the end of her meal. Thus, petitioner
was constituted as a depositary of the same car. 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.

In a contract of deposit, a person receives an object belonging to another with the obligation of safely
keeping it and returning the same.[3] A deposit may be constituted even without any consideration. It is
cralaw

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.

Specious is petitioner's insistence that the valet parking claim stub it issued to De Asis contains a clear
exclusion of its liability and operates as an explicit waiver by the customer of any right to claim indemnity
for any loss of or damage to the vehicle.

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.[4] cralaw

Hence, and as aptly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, petitioner must not be allowed to use its
parking claim stub's exclusionary stipulation as a shield from any responsibility for any loss or damage to
vehicles or to the valuables contained therein. Here, it is evident that De Asis deposited the car in
question with the petitioner as part of the latter's enticement for customers by providing them a safe
parking space within the vicinity of its restaurant. In a very real sense, a safe parking space is an added
attraction to petitioner's restaurant business because customers are thereby somehow assured that their
vehicle are safely kept, rather than parking them elsewhere at their own risk. Having entrusted the
subject car to petitioner's valet attendant, customer De Asis, like all of petitioner's customers, fully
expects the security of her car while at petitioner's premises/designated parking areas and its safe return
at the end of her visit at petitioner's restaurant.

Petitioner's argument that there was no valid subrogation of rights between Crispa and FMICI because
theft was not a risk insured against under FMICI's Insurance Policy No. PC-5975 holds no water.

Insurance Policy No. PC-5975 which respondent FMICI issued to Crispa contains, among others things,
the following item: "Insured's Estimate of Value of Scheduled Vehicle- P800.000".[5] On the basis of such
cralaw

item, the trial court concluded that the coverage includes a full comprehensive insurance of the vehicle in
case of damage or loss. Besides, Crispa paid a premium of P10,304 to cover theft. This is clearly shown
in the breakdown of premiums in the same policy.[6] Thus, having indemnified CRISPA for the stolen car,
cralaw

FMICI, as correctly ruled by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, was properly subrogated to Crispa's
rights against petitioner, pursuant to Article 2207 of the New Civil Code[7].

http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/february/160544.php Page 2 of 4
Triple V vs Fil Merchants : 160544 : February 21, 2005 : Atty Abjelina-Soriano : Third Division 02/07/2019, 11)00 PM

Anent the trial court's findings of negligence on the part of the petitioner, which findings were affirmed by
the appellate court, we have consistently ruled that findings of facts of trial courts, more so when
affirmed, as here, by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court unless the trial court itself
ignored, overlooked or misconstrued facts and circumstances which, if considered, warrant a reversal of
the outcome of the case.[8] This is not so in the case at bar. For, we have ourselves reviewed the records
cralaw

and find no justification to deviate from the trial court's findings.

WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associale Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion and concurred in by Associate
cralaw

Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Lucas P. Bersamin of the Special Fourth Division.
[2]
cralaw Rollo, pp. 52-58.
[3]
Calibo vs. Court of Appeals, 350 SCRA 427 [2001] citing Article 1962 of the New Civil
cralaw

Code.
[4] cralaw Ermitano vs. Court of Appeals, 306 SCRA 218 [ 1999].
[5]
cralaw Rollo, p. 633.
[6]
cralaw Ibid
[7]
Article 2207. If the plaintiffs property has been insured, and he has received indemnity
cralaw

from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or breach of
contract complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the
insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. xxx
[8]
C & S Fishfarm Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al, 394 SCRA 82 [2002]; Peñalosa
cralaw

vs. Santos, 363 SCRA 545 [2001]; Marvin Mercado vs. People of the Philippines, 392 SCRA
687 [2002].

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956

http://www.chanrobles.com/scresolutions/resolutions/2005/february/160544.php Page 3 of 4