USA College of Law

BMC 2022-2023

Case Name 9. YHT Realty vs CA

Topic
Case No. | Date G.R. No. 126780 | February 17, 2005
Ponente
Article 1170 of the New Civil Code, 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, Article 2180, paragraph (4) of the same Code provides that the owners and
Doctrine
managers of an establishment or enterprise 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.

RELEVANT FACTS
• Private Respondent was an Australian businessman-philanthropist who stayed in a Suites owned by
the Petitioner. The Private Respondent rented a safety deposit box with the said Suite. In Renting the
box, he was asked to sign a waiver “Undertaking For The Use of Safety Deposit Box” which
exonerating the Hotel, its Management and Employees from liability in case of loss of the item in
the box.
• The companion of the respondent Tan, while the latter was sleeping with the assistance of the staff
of the Hotel, was allowed to open the depositary box of Respondent. When the respondent opened
the box, he Notice in a number of occasion that the Money he placed in the box was either missing
or lacking. When he confronted the Management of the hotel, the latter advised that it was his
companion Tan who opened the box.
• The respondent went to the RTC and filed a complaint against the Petitioner. In the RTC, the
Petitioner contented that the waiver signed by the Respondent exonerate them from liabilities. the
RTC found the Management of the Hotel negligent for allowing a third person to open the box
which the Respondent rented from them. The RTC found the Hotel and its staff liable for the actual
and Moral damages that the Respondent lost.
• Petitioner went to CA to contest the decision. However, the CA agreed with the decision of the RTC
and dismissed the petition. Hence, the Petitioner elevated the issue to the SC.

RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
 USA College of Law
BMC 2022-2023
Whether Petitioner YES. The evidence reveals that two keys are required to open the safety deposit
Committed Gross boxes of Tropicana. One key is assigned to the guest while the other remains in the
Negligence for the possession of the management. If the guest desires to open his safety deposit box, he
stolen property of the must request the management for the other key to open the same. In other words, the
Private Respondent guest alone cannot open the safety deposit box without the assistance of the
management or its employees. Thus, in case of loss of any item deposited in the
safety deposit box, 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. In fact,
they even admitted that they assisted Tan on three separate occasions in opening
McLoughlin's safety deposit box. This only proves 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.

W/N YHT should be YES. Under Article 1170 of the New Civil Code, those who, in the performance of
held solidarily liable. their obligations, are guilty of negligence, are liable for damages. As to who shall
bear the burden of paying damages, Article 2180, paragraph (4) of the same Code
provides that the owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise 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.

RULING
Petition is DENIED. CA’s decision if affirmed.

NOTES