GR. NO.

160544, FEBRUARY 21, 2005

TRIPLE-V FOOD SERVICES VS FILIPINO MERCHANT

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 SaloonModel
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 carwas 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 indemnifiedCrispa 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.

Inits 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 parkingservice,
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
orwarranty for the loss of the vehicle.

The RTC issued its judgment in favor of the plaintiff (FMICI) and against the
defendant Triple V (herein petitioner). On appeal, petitioner contended 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 carnapping incident
and in the supervision of its employees. It further argued that there was no valid
subrogation ofrights betweenCrispa and respondent FMICI.

The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal and affirmed the appealed
decision of the trial court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner should be held liable for the loss of De Asis' car.

HELD:

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 constitutedwhen
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. A deposit may be constituted
even without any consideration. It is not necessary thatthe depositary receives a fee
before it becomes obligated to keep the item entrusted for safekeeping and to
return it later to the depositor. The parking claim stub embodying the terms and
conditions of the parking, including that of relievingpetitioner from any loss or
damage to the car, is essentially a contract ofadhesion, 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.

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 thattheir 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,
fullyexpects 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.