RENGIE C.

GALO

GR. No. 160554, February 21, 2005

TRIPLE-V FOOD SERVICES INC. vs. FILIPINO MERCHANTS INSURANCE

COMPANY

FACTS:
On March 2, 1997, at around 2:15 o'clock in the afternoon, a certain Mary Jo-Anne De Asis (De Asis)
dined at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant at 15 West Avenue, Quezon City. De Asis was using a
Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon Model 1995 with plate number UBU 955, assigned to her by her
employer Crispa Textile Inc. (Crispa). 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. The car was then parked by petitioner's valet attendant, a certain Madridano,
at the designated parking area. 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 in the amount of
P669.500 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 Triple-V Food Services, Inc., thereat docketed as
Civil Case No. 98-838 which was raffled to Branch 148.

Petitioner claimed that the complaint failed to adduce facts to support the allegations of recklessness and
negligence committed in the safekeeping and custody of the subject vehicle. Besides, when De Asis
availed the free parking stab which contained a waiver of petitioner’s liability in case of loss, she had
thereby waived her rights.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner Triple-V Food Services, Inc. is liable for the loss.

HELD:
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. 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. Thus, petitioner was constituted as a depositary of the
same car

The Court also said that the free valet service was part of the restaurant’s enticement for customers since
it assured them that their vehicles would be safely kept within the restaurant’s vicinity, rather than parked
elsewhere at their own risk. Having then entrusted the car to Triple-V’s valet attendant, De Asis, like all
of the restaurant’s customers, fully expected the security of her car while in the designated parking area
and its safe return at the end of her visit, the Court stressed.

PRINCIPLE:
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.