YHT Realty vs.

CA
G.R. No. 126780, February 17, 2005

FACTS:
McLoughlin, an Australian businessman-philanthropist, used to stay at Sheraton Hotel during
his trips to the Philippines prior to 1984 when he met Tan who made him switch primary hotels
to now stay at the Tropicana. McLoughlin made use of the safety deposit boxes offered by the
hotel for the safe keeping of his money, checkbooks and jewelry. on his short trip to Hongkong,
he realized that one envelope of money he had stored was missing 2,000.00USD out of the
5,000.00 he thought he had placed inside it. The Deposit Box may only be opened through
the use of 2 keys, one held by McLoughlin and the other by the management staff.

On another business trip, he then again utilized the Safety deposit box to store more
envelopes of money and even some jewelry. When he left for Australia, he discovered that
the envelope with US$10,000.00 only had US$5,000. He also noticed that the jewelry which
he bought in Hongkong and stored in the safety deposit box upon his return to Tropicana was
likewise missing, except for a diamond bracelet.”

When McLoughlin discovered the loss, he immediately confronted Lainez and Payam who
admitted that Tan opened the safety deposit box with the key assigned to him. McLoughlin
went up to his room where Tan was staying and confronted her. Tan admitted that she had
stolen McLoughlin's key and was able to open the safety deposit box with the assistance of
Lopez, Payam and Lainez. Lopez also told McLoughlin that Tan stole the key assigned to
McLoughlin while the latter was asleep.

McLoughlin now raises the case to court but is now faced with a stipulation on the safety
deposit agreement stating that “to release and hold free and blameless TROPICANA
APARTMENT HOTEL from any liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or use of the
said deposit box for any cause whatsoever, including but not limited to the presentation or use
thereof by any other person should the key be lost.”

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Hotel may escape Liability from the actions of their staff through a written
stipulation stating that “the hotel would be released from liability arising from any loss in the
contents and/or use of the safety deposit box for any cause whatsoever.”

RULING: No.

Such stipulation is against public policy and would allow hotels not to be held liable for the
negligence or deceit of their staff or employees. Such stipulation is also against Art 2003 of
the civil code. “The New Civil Code is explicit that the responsibility of the hotel-keeper shall
extend to loss of, or injury to, the personal property of the guests even if caused by servants
or employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well as by strangers, except as it may proceed
from any force majeure.”

The Civil Code is explicit that the responsibility of the hotel-keeper shall extend to loss of, or
injury to, the personal property of the guests even if caused by servants or employees of the
keepers of hotels or inns as well as by strangers, except as it may proceed from any force
majeure.”

At the case at bar, the agreement to be signed for the use of the deposit box manifestly
contravene Article 2003 of the Civil Code for they allow Tropicana to be released from liability
arising from any loss in the contents and/or use of the safety deposit box for any cause
whatsoever.

Such stipulation is void, the Hotel may not escape liability through such stipulation.