Durban Apartments Corp. v. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp.

G.R. No. 179419, January 12, 2011, 639 SCRA 441

J. Nachura

DIGEST BY: Mac Duguiang Jr.

PETITIONER: Durban Apartment Corp.

RESPONDENT: Pioneer Insurance

SUMMARY:

A hotel guest gave is keys to the valet of the hotel to park his car. The car was unfortunately
carnapped. The insurance company subrogated the owner and filed claim against the hotel arguing
that there was a contract of deposit, hence, the hotel should be liable for the loss.

The Court agreed with the respondent insurance company. A deposit is constituted from the moment
a person receives a thing belonging to another, with the obligation of safely keeping it and returning
the same.

FACTS:

 Jeffrey See, an insured of Pioneer Insurance, checked into the City Garden Hotel, owned by
Durban Apartments Corp.
 The parking attendant of the hotel, Justimbaste got the key to the car of See to park it in the
adjacent lot of Equitable PCI Bank
 Later on, See received a call from the Hotel Chief Security Officer informing him that his car was
carnapped while it was parked unattended.
 See reported the incident to the Police Anti-Carnapping Unit
 See also filed claim for insurance with Pioneer Insurance which paid the same for the indemnity
for the vehicle’s loss.
 Pioneer filed a claim by means of subrogation against Durban Apartment and its parking valet,
alleging that:
o The loss was due to the hotel’s negligence
 This was the second time that a similar incident of carnapping happened in the
valet parking service and no necessary precautions were taken to prevent its
repetition
 Durban Apartment was wanting in due diligence in the selection and supervision
of its employees, particularly Justimbaste
o A contract of necessary deposit existed between the insured See and Durban
Apartment, hence, the hotel is liable for the loss
 Durban Apartment, in response, argued that:
o It was See who requested the valet to get his keys and find a space wherever parking
was available
 o The car was taken without the key, which was even surrendered to See
o Justimbaste even tried to run after the carnappers to no avail
 The lower court ruled in favor of Pioneer
 This was affirmed by the CA, hence this petition.

ISSUE:

W/N the hotel was liable for the loss of the car of the insured --- YES
(super short part of the case lang yung about sa lesson)

 Article 1962, in relation to Article 1998, of the Civil Code defines a contract of deposit and a
necessary deposit made by persons in hotels or inns:
o Art. 1962. A deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a thing belonging
to another, with the obligation of safely keeping it and returning the same….
o Art. 1998. The deposit of effects made by travelers in hotels or inns shall also be
regarded as necessary. 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.

 Plainly, from the facts found by the lower courts, 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.
 Pursuant to Art. 1962 and 1998, petitioner is liable for the loss of See’s vehicle.

RULING:
Petition DENIED