451 SCRA 638, G.R. No.

126780, February 17, 2005

YHT REALTY VS. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:
McLoughlin (private respondent), an Australian businessman, regularly stayed at
Sheraton Hotel during trips to Philippines. McLoughlin became friends with Tan, who
convinced the former to transfer from Sheraton Hotel to Tropicana Hotel were
(petitioners) Lainez, Payam and Lopez. Lopez served as manager while Lainez and
Payam had custody of the keys for the safety deposit boxes of Tropicana Hotel.
The procedure for the safety deposit box at Tropicana Hotel was that it can be opened
by 2 keys only. 1 key is given to the registered hotel guest while the other key is held by
the hotel management.
McLoughlin deposited $15,000 (US) and $10,000 (AUS) as well as letters, bankbooks,
credit cards and a checkbook in the safety deposit box during his stay at Tropicana
Hotel.
After his trips abroad, McLoughlin discovered that some cash and valuables he
deposited in the safety deposit box were missing. McLoughlin immediately confronted
Lainez and Payam. Both admitted that Tan opened the safety deposit box with the key
assigned to him.
When McLoughlin confronted Tan, she admitted to have stolen the key with the
assistance of Lopez, Payam and Lainez. A promissory note was written by Lopez,
promising to pay the amount of $4,000 (AUS) and $2,000 (US).
McLoughlin insisted that Tropicana Hotel be responsible for the loss. However, Lopez
refused and relied on the conditions for renting the safety deposit box which provides
that the hotel is free from any liability arising from loss should the key be lost and to
return the key and execute the release in favor of the hotel upon giving up the use of the
box. McLoughlin filed a case against petitioners. RTC ruled in favor of McLoughlin,
making petitioners jointly and severally liable for the losses plus damages. The hotel
conditions were ruled not valid for being contrary to Art 2003 of the NCC and public
policy. The CA also ruled in favor of McLoughlin.

ISSUE:
Whether or not YHT Corporation is jointly and severally liable for the losses suffered by
McLoughlin?

HELD:
YES.
SC appreciated the facts found and proven by the lower court that McLoughlin indeed
deposited such cash and valuables as he claimed.
The evidence also revealed that the hotel guest alone cannot open the safety deposit
box without the assistance of the hotel management or its employees. In case of loss of
any item deposited, it is inevitable to conclude that the management had at least a hand
in the consummation of the taking, unless the reason for the loss is force majeure.
Noteworthy is the fact that Payam and Lainez, who were employees of Tropicana, had
custody of the master key of the management when the loss took place. They even
admitted that they assisted Tan on 3 separate occasions in opening McLoughlin’s safety
deposit box.
It is proved that Tropicana had prior knowledge that a person aside from the registered
guest had access to the safety deposit box.Yet the management failed to notify
McLoughlin of the incident and waited for him to discover the taking before it disclosed
the matter to him. Therefore, Tropicana should be held responsible for the damage
suffered by McLoughlin by reason of the negligence of its employees.
Tan’s acts should have prompted the management to investigate her relationship with
McLoughlin. Then, petitioners would have exercised due diligence required of them.
Failure to do so warrants the conclusion that the management had been remiss in
complying with the obligations imposed upon hotel-keepers under the law.
Under Art 1170 of NCC, those who, in the performance of their obligations, are guilty of
negligence, are liable for damages. As to who shall bear the burden of paying damages,
Art 2180 Par (4) of NCC provides that the owners and managers of an establishment
are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the
branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Also, this Court has ruled that if an employee is found negligent, it is presumed that the
employer was negligent in selecting and/or supervising him for it is hard for the victim to
prove the negligence of such employer.
Thus, given the fact that the loss of McLoughlin’s money was consummated through the
negligence of Tropicana’s employees in allowing Tan to open the safety deposit box
without the guest’s consent, both the assisting employees and YHT Realty Corporation
itself, as owner and operator of Tropicana, should be held solidarily liable pursuant to
Article 2193.
Also, Art 2003 is controlling which provides that 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 2001 is suppressed or
diminished shall be void.
Petitioners contend that McLoughlin’s case was mounted on the theory of contract, but
the trial court and the appellate court upheld the grant of the claims of the latter on the
basis of tort. There is nothing anomalous in how the lower courts decided the
controversy for this Court has pronounced a jurisprudential rule that tort liability can
exist even if there are already contractual relations. The act that breaks the contract
may also be tort.