OF THE PHILIPPINES security services to BSP. G.R. No. 179382 Furthermore, Article 1311 of the Civil FACTS: Spouses Benjamin and Sonia Code states, “Contracts take effect only Mamaril are jeepney operators. They between the parties, their assigns and would park their six (6) passenger heirs, except in case where the rights and jeepneys every night at the Boy Scout of obligations arising from the contract are the Philippines' (BSP) compound for a fee not transmissible by their nature, or by of P300.00 per month for each unit. One stipulation or by provision of law. The heir morning after all such vehicles were is not liable beyond the value of the parked inside the BSP compound, one of property he received from the decedent.” the vehicles was missing and was never recovered. According to the security If a contract should contain some guards Cesario Peña (Peña) and Vicente stipulation in favor of a third person, he Gaddi (Gaddi) of AIB Security Agency, Inc. may demand its fulfillment provided he (AIB) with whom BSP had contracted for communicated his acceptance to the its security and protection, a male person obligor before its revocation. A mere who looked familiar to them took the incidental benefit or interest of a person subject vehicle out of the compound. Sps. is not sufficient. The contracting parties Mamaril filed a complaint for damages must have clearly and deliberately before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) conferred a favor upon a third person. against BSP, AIB, Peña and Gaddi. The Thus, in order that a third person RTC decided in favor of the Sps. Mamaril. benefited by the second paragraph of The Court of Appeals modified the RTC’s Article 1311, referred to as a stipulation decision and absolved BSP from any pour autrui, may demand its fulfillment, liability. the following requisites must concur: (1) There is a stipulation in favor of a third ISSUE: WON BSP is liable for the loss of person; (2) The stipulation is a part, not one of the vehicles owned by the Sps. the whole, of the contract; (3) The Mamaril. contracting parties clearly and deliberately conferred a favor to the third RULING: No, BSP is not liable. It is person - the favor is not merely undisputed that the proximate cause of incidental; (4) The favor is unconditional the loss of Sps. Mamaril's vehicle was the and uncompensated; (5) The third person negligent act of security guards Peña and communicated his or her acceptance of Gaddi in allowing an unidentified person the favor before its revocation; and (6) to drive out the subject vehicle. Peña and The contracting parties do not represent, Gaddi were assigned as security guards or are not authorized, by the third party. by AIB to BSP pursuant to a Guard Service Contract. Clearly, no employer- None of the foregoing elements obtains in employee relationship existed between this case. It is undisputed that Sps. BSP and the security guards assigned in Mamaril are not parties to the Guard its premises. Consequently, the latter's Service Contract. Neither did the subject negligence cannot be imputed against agreement contain any stipulation pour BSP but should be attributed to AIB, the autrui. And even if there was, Sps. true employer of Peña and Gaddi. Mamaril did not convey any acceptance thereof. Thus, under the principle of Nor can it be said that a principal-agent relativity of contracts, they cannot validly relationship existed between BSP and the claim any rights or favor under the said security guards Peña and Gaddi as to agreement. First, the Guard Service make the former liable for the latter's Contract between BSP and AIB Security complained act. The basis for agency is Agency is purely between the parties representation, which element is absent therein. Also, there is absolutely nothing in the instant case. Records show that in the said contract that would indicate BSP merely hired the services of AIB, any obligation and/or liability on the part which, in turn, assigned security guards, of the parties therein in favor of third solely for the protection of its properties persons such as the Sps. Mamaril. and premises. Nowhere can it be inferred in the Guard Service Contract that AIB Moreover, the contract between the was appointed as an agent of BSP. parties herein was one of lease as defined Instead, what the parties intended was a under the Civil Code. It has been held pure principal-client relationship whereby that the act of parking a vehicle in a garage, upon payment of a fixed amount, suitable for the use to which it has been is a lease. Even in a majority of American devoted, unless there is a stipulation to cases, it has been ruled that where a the contrary; and (3) to maintain the customer simply pays a fee, parks his car lessee in the peaceful and adequate in any available space in the lot, locks the enjoyment of the lease for the entire car and takes the key with him, the duration of the contract." In relation possession and control of the car, thereto, Article 1664 of the same Code necessary elements in bailment, do not states that "the lessor is not obliged to pass to the parking lot operator, hence, answer for a mere act of trespass which a the contractual relationship between the third person may cause on the use of the parties is one of lease. thing leased; but the lessee shall have a direct action against the intruder." Here, Article 1654 of the Civil Code provides BSP was not remiss in its obligation to that "the lessor (BSP) is obliged: (1) to provide Sps. Mamaril a suitable parking deliver the thing which is the object of the space for their jeepneys as it even hired contract in such a condition as to render security guards to secure the premises; it fit for the use intended; (2) to make on hence, it should not be held liable for the the same during the lease all the loss suffered by Sps. Mamaril. necessary repairs in order to keep it