[G.R. No. 160544.

February 21, 2005] 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.
TRIPLE-V vs. FILIPINO MERCHANTS

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

Gentlemen:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the
plaintiff (FMICI) and against the defendant Triple V (herein petitioner) and the latter
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 21 is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff the following:
2005.
1. The amount of P669,500.00, representing actual damages plus compounded (sic);
G.R. No. 160544 (Triple-V Food Services, Inc. vs. Filipino Merchants Insurance
Company, Inc.)
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;
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the decision[1]cralaw dated October
21, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71223, affirming an earlier
3. The amount of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;
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. 4. Plus, cost of suit.

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", 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.
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]cralaw the Court of Appeals dismissed
petitioner's appeal and affirmed 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]cralaw 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.
the Court of Appeals, was properly subrogated to Crispa's rights against petitioner,
pursuant to Article 2207 of the New Civil Code[7].
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]cralaw This is not so in the case at bar. For, we have ourselves
reviewed the records and find no justification to deviate from the trial court's findings.
WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE.
SO ORDERED.

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]cralaw On the basis of such 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]cralaw Thus, having
indemnified CRISPA for the stolen car, FMICI, as correctly ruled by the trial court and