Name:

Rem Joshua T. Serrano

Topic:
Deposit
Provision:
Art. 1962, NCC
Title:
Triple-V Food Services, Inc. v. Filipino Merchants Insurance
Source, Date:
GR No. 160544, 21 February 2005
Facts:
Mary Jo-Anne De Asis (De Asis) dined at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant. On said date,
De Asis availed of the valet parking service of petitioner and entrusted her car key to
petitioner's valet counter. A corresponding parking ticket was issued as receipt for the
car. Petitioners valet attendant, a certain Madridano, at the designated parking area,
then parked the car. Few minutes later, Madridano noticed that the car was not in its
parking slot and its key no longer in the box where valet attendants usually keep the keys
of cars entrusted to them. The car was never recovered. Thereafter, Crispa filed a claim
against its insurer, herein respondent Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc.
(FMICI). Having indemnified Crispa for the loss of the subject vehicle, FMICI, as
subrogee to Crispa's rights, filed with the RTC at Makati City an action for damages
against petitioner.
In its answer, petitioner claimed that it and its employees wasted no time in ascertaining
the loss of the car and in informing De Asis of the discovery of the loss. Petitioner further
argued that in accepting the complimentary valet parking service, De Asis received a
parking ticket where under it is so provided that "[Management and staff will not be
responsible for any loss of or damage incurred on the vehicle nor of valuables contained
therein", a provision which, to petitioner's mind, is an explicit waiver of any right to claim
indemnity for the loss of the car; and that De Asis knowingly assumed the risk of loss
when she allowed petitioner to park her vehicle, adding that its valet parking service did
not include extending a contract of insurance or warranty for the loss of the vehicle.
Issue:
1. Whether petitioner was the depositary of the subject vehicle.
2. Whether petitioner is liable for the loss of the subject vehicle.
Held:
1. YES
2. YES
Ruling:
In a contract of deposit, a person receives an object belonging to another with the

obligation of safely keeping it and returning the same. A deposit may be constituted even
without any consideration. It is not necessary that the depositary receives a fee before it
becomes obligated to keep the item entrusted for safekeeping and to return it later to the
depositor.
When De Asis entrusted the car in question to petitioners valet attendant while eating at
petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant, the former expected the car's safe return at the end of
her meal. Thus, petitioner was constituted as a depositary of the same car. Petitioner
cannot evade liability by arguing that neither a contract of deposit nor that of insurance,
guaranty or surety for the loss of the car was constituted when De Asis availed of its free
valet parking service.