DURBAN APARTMENTS CORP. (under the
A deposit is constituted from the moment
name of City Garden Hotel) vs. PIONEER
INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION
Pioneer Insurance, filed a Complaint for Recovery of
Damages against Durban Apartments.
Respondent averred that the insurer suffer for loss
and damage of Jeffrey S. See’s insured Suzuki Grand
Vitara. Thecar was parked in the premises of the hotel
and that the Hotel Chief Security Officer informed him
that it was carnapped while it was parked unattended
at the parking area.
Respo paid the ₱1,163,250.00 money claim and
mortgagee ABN AMRO Savings Bank, Inc. as
indemnity for the loss of the Vitara. It alleged that lost
due to the negligence of Durban Apartments because
it was discovered during the investigation that this
was the second time that a similar incident of
carnapping happened and no necessary precautions
were taken to prevent its repetition; Durban
Apartments failed and refused to pay its valid, just,
and lawful claim despite written demands.
Durban Apartments and [defendant] Justimbaste
contentions: See that he was only a guest of a certain
Ching Montero. Justimbaste did not get the ignition
key of See’s Vitara, on the contrary, it was See who
requested a parking attendant to park the Vitara at
any available parking space, and it was parked at the
Equitable Bank parking area, which was within See’s
view;
valet parking services are provided by the hotel for
the convenience of its customers looking for a parking
space near the hotel premises; it is a special privilege
that it gave to Montero and See; it does not include
responsibility for any losses or damages to motor
vehicles and its accessories in the parking area; and
the same holds true even if it was See himself who
parked his Vitara within the premises of the hotel;
RTC: ruled in favor of Respondent; CA: Affirmed.
ISSUE: W/N Petitioner is liable for the loss of See’s
vehicle. YES
HELD:
a contract of necessary deposit existed between the
insured See and petitioner.
Art. 1962.
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.1avvphi1 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.
In the case, the insured See deposited his vehicle for
safekeeping with petitioner, through the latter’s
employee, Justimbaste. In turn, Justimbaste issued a
claim stub to See. Thus, the contract of deposit was
perfected from See’s delivery, when he handed over
to Justimbaste the keys to his vehicle, which
Justimbaste received with the obligation of safely
keeping and returning it. Ultimately, petitioner is
liable for the loss of See’s vehicle.
YHT REALTY CORPORATION, ERLINDA LAINEZ and
ANICIA PAYAM v. CA & MAURICE McLOUGHLIN
Petitioners are employees of Tropicana hotel. Lopez
served as manager while Lainez and Payam had
custody of the keys for the safety deposit boxes of
Tropicana.
McLoughlin arrived from Australia and registered
with Tropicana. He rented a safety deposit box in
Tropicana. McLoughlin was aware of the procedure
observed by Tropicana relative to its safety deposit
boxes. The safety deposit box could only be opened
through the use of two keys, one of which is given to
the registered guest, and the other remaining in the
possession of the management of the hotel. When a
registered guest wished to open his safety deposit
box, he alone could personally request the
management who then would assign one of its
employees to accompany the guest and assist him in
opening the safety deposit box with the two keys.
McLoughlin allegedly placed the following in his
safety deposit box: US$15,000 which he placed in two
envelopes, one envelope containing US$10,000.00
and the other envelope US$5,000.00;
AUS$10,000.00)which he also placed in another
envelope; credit cards; bankbooks; and a checkbook,
arranged side by side inside the safety deposit box.
Before leaving to Hongkong, McLoughlin opened his
safety deposit box and took therefrom the envelope.
When he arrived in Hongkong, he discovered that the
envelope which US$5,000 contains only 3000USD. He
thought that it was just a result of bad accounting.
He then returned to Manila and thereafter went to
Australia. When he arrived in Australia, he discovered
that the envelope with 10000USD was short of
5000USD. He also noticed that the jewelry which he
bought in Hongkong and stored in the safety deposit
box u was likewise missing.
Upon his return to the Phil, he confronted the
petitioners about the missing money and jewelry.
Lainez and Payam 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 McLoughlin's key and was able to open the
safety deposit box with the assistance of Lopez,
Payam and Lainez. Lopez also told McLoughlin that
Tan stole the key assigned to McLoughlin while the
latter was asleep.
Thereafter, Lopez wrote on a piece of paper a
promissory note. Tan to signed the promissory note
which and Lopez also signed as a witness. Despite the
execution of promissory note by Tan, McLoughlin
insisted that it must be the hotel who must assume
responsibility for the loss he suffered.
However, Lopez refused to accept the responsibility
relying on the conditions for renting the safety
deposit box entitled "Undertaking For the Use Of
Safety Deposit Box," specifically paragraphs (2) and
(4) thereof, to wit:
2. To release and hold free and blameless
TROPICANA APARTMENT HOTEL from any
liability arising from any loss in the contents
and/or use of the said deposit box for any
cause whatsoever, including but not limited
to the presentation or use thereof by any
other person should the key be lost;
4. To return the key and execute the
RELEASE in favor of TROPICANA APARTMENT
HOTEL upon giving up the use of the box.
McLoughlin went back to Australia and he consulted
his lawyers as to the validity of the abovementioned
stipulations. They opined that the stipulations are
void for being violative of universal hotel practices
and customs.
Subsequently, a complaint for damages against YHT
Realty Corporation, Lopez, Lainez, Payam and Tan
(defendants) for the loss of McLoughlin's money.
RTC: ruled in favor of Respondent. Found that
defendants acted with gross negligence in the
performance and exercise of their duties and
obligations as innkeepers and were therefore liable to
answer for the losses incurred by McLoughlin.
Moreover, the trial court ruled that paragraphs (2)
and (4) of the "Undertaking For The Use Of Safety
Deposit Box" are not valid for being contrary to the
express mandate of Article 2003 of the New Civil Code
and against public policy.27 Thus, there being fraud
or wanton conduct on the part of defendants, they
should be responsible for all damages which may be
attributed to the non-performance of their
contractual obligations.
CA: Affirmed.
ISSUE:
1. W/N "Undertaking For The Use of Safety
Deposit Box" is null and void. YES
2. W/N the employees are guilty of gross
negligence. YES
HELD:
1. Art. 2003. The hotel-keeper 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 without the assistance of the management or its
200137 is suppressed or diminished shall be void. employees. With more reason that access to the
safety deposit box should be denied if the one
Article 2003 CC as an expression of public policy requesting for the opening of the safety deposit
precisely to apply to situations such as that box is a stranger. Thus, in case of loss of any item
presented in this case. The hotel business like the deposited in the safety deposit box, it is
common carrier's business is imbued with public inevitable to conclude that the management had
interest. Catering to the public, hotelkeepers are at least a hand in the consummation of the
bound to provide not only lodging for hotel taking, unless the reason for the loss is force
guests and security to their persons and majeure.
belongings. The twin duty constitutes the Noteworthy is the fact that Payam and Lainez,
essence of the business. The law in turn does not who were employees of Tropicana, had custody
allow such duty to the public to be negated or of the master key of the management when the
diluted by any contrary stipulation in so-called loss took place. In fact, they even admitted that
"undertakings" that ordinarily appear in they assisted Tan on three separate occasions in
prepared forms imposed by hotel keepers on opening McLoughlin's safety deposit box.33 This
guests for their signature. only proves that Tropicana had prior knowledge
that a person aside from the registered guest had
Paragraphs (2) and (4) of the "undertaking" access to the safety deposit box. Yet the
manifestly contravene Article 2003 CC for they management failed to notify McLoughlin of the
allow Tropicana to be released from liability incident and waited for him to discover the taking
arising from any loss in the contents and/or use before it disclosed the matter to him. Therefore,
of the safety deposit box for any cause Tropicana should be held responsible for the
whatsoever. Evidently, the undertaking was damage suffered by McLoughlin by reason of the
intended to bar any claim against Tropicana for negligence of its employees.
any loss of the contents of the safety deposit box
whether or not negligence was incurred by
Tropicana or its employees. The Civil Code is MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL vs. ELLEN &
JONATHAN HARPER, and RIGOBERTO
explicit that the responsibility of the hotel-keeper
GILLERA
shall extend to loss of, or injury to, the personal
Christian Harper came to Manila on a business trip as
property of the guests even if caused by servants
the Business Development Manager for Asia of
or employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as
ALSTOM Power Norway AS, an engineering firm with
well as by strangers, except as it may proceed
worldwide operations. He checked in at the Shangri-
from any force majeure. It is the loss through
La Hotel. however, he was murdered (stabbed to
force majeure that may spare the hotel-keeper
death) inside his hotel room by still unidentified
from liability. In the case at bar, there is no
malefactors. He was then 30 years old.
showing that the act of the thief or robber was
done with the use of arms or through an
Criminal Investigation of the Makati City Police
irresistible force to qualify the same as force
reported that the police investigation showed that
majeure.
Harper’s passport, credit cards, laptop and an
undetermined amount of cash had been missing from
2. The evidence reveals that two keys are required
the crime scene; and that he had learned during the
to open the safety deposit boxes of Tropicana.
follow-up investigation about an unidentified
One key is assigned to the guest while the other
Caucasian male’s attempt to purchase a Cartier lady’s
remains in the possession of the management. If
watch from the Alexis Jewelry Store in Ayala Center,
the guest desires to open his safety deposit box,
Makati City with the use of one of Harper’s credit
he must request the management for the other
cards.
key to open the same. In other words, the guest
alone cannot open the safety deposit box
Respondents filed suit to recover various damages
from petitioner,6 pertinently alleging:
The murderer succeeded to trespass into the
area of the hotel’s private rooms area and
into the room of the said deceased on
account of the hotel’s gross negligence in
providing the most basic security system of
its guests, the lack of which owing to the acts
or omissions of its employees was the
immediate cause of the tragic death of said
deceased.
RTC: Ruled in favor of the respondents; that the hotel
to be remiss in its duties and thus liable to death.
CA: Modified RTC ruling
Hotel contention: proximate cause of Christian
Harper’s death was his own negligence in inviting to
his room the two (2) still unidentified suspects.
Respondent countered: that the hotel was in a better
situation than the injured person, Christian Harper, to
foresee and prevent the happening of the injurious
occurrence. They maintain that even prior to the
death, defendant-appellant was duly forewarned of
its security lapses as pointed out by its Chief Security
Officer, who recommended that one roving guard be
assigned on each floor of the hotel considering the
length and shape of the corridors. They posit that
hotel’s inaction constitutes negligence.
ISSUE: W/N Petitioner is liable due to its negligence
YES
HELD:
Article 2176 CC "Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, if there was no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict and
is governed by the provisions of this chapter."
Liability on the part of the defendant is based upon
the fact that he was in a better situation than the
injured person to foresee and prevent the happening
of the injurious occurrence.
There is no dispute that even prior to the untimely
demise of Mr. Harper, defendant was duly
forewarned of the security lapses in the hotel. Col. De
Guzman was particularly concerned with the security
of the private areas where the guest rooms are. He
wanted not just one roving guard in every three or
four floors. He insisted there must be at least one in
each floor considering the length and the shape of the
corridors. The trained eyes of a security officer was
(sic) looking at that deadly scenario resulting from
that wide security breach as that which befell
Christian Harper.
Clearly, defendant’s inaction constitutes negligence
or want of the reasonable care demanded of it in that
particular situation.
Negligence is he failure to observe for the protection
of the interests of another person that degree of care,
precaution and vigilance, which the circumstances
justly demand, whereby such person suffers injury.
Negligence is want of care required by the
circumstances. It is a relative or comparative, not an
absolute term, and its application depends upon the
situation of the parties, and the degree of care and
vigilance which the circumstances reasonably impose.
Where the danger is great, a high degree of care is
necessary.
In the case, negligence on the part of hotel was
grounded mainly on the latter’s inadequate hotel
security, more particularly on the failure to deploy
sufficient security personnel or roving guards at the
time the ghastly incident happened.
The hotel business is imbued with public interest.
Catering to the public, hotelkeepers are bound to
provide not only lodging for their guests but also
security to the persons and belongings of their guests.
The twin duty constitutes the essence of the business.
Applying Article 2000, Article 2001 and Article 2002 of
the Civil Code (all of which concerned the
hotelkeepers’ degree of care and responsibility as to
the personal effects of their guests), we hold that
there is much greater reason to apply the same if not
greater degree of care and responsibility when the
lives and personal safety of their guests are involved.
Otherwise, the hotelkeepers would simply stand idly
by as strangers have unrestricted access to all the
hotel rooms on the pretense of being visitors of the
guests, without being held liable should anything
untoward befall the unwary guests. That would be
absurd, something that no good law would ever
envision.