Triple-V Food

Services, Inc. v. When De Asis entrusted the car in question to

Filipino Merchants petitioners valet attendant while eating at
Insurance Company, petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant, the former
Inc., expected the car's safe return at the end of her
G.R. No. 160544,
meal. Thus, petitioner was constituted as a
February 21, 2005
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.

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
cky
Copy a sticky Copy a sntiw Copy a stic
note, then write e rite note, then wky
your thoughts. note, th oughts. your thoughtsrite
your th .

depositary receives a fee before it becomes

obligated to keep the item entrusted for
safekeeping and to return it later to the depositor.
Triple-V Food
TheInc.
Services, parking
v. claim stub embodying the terms and conditions of the parking, including
that of relieving petitioner from any loss or damage to the car, is essentially a
Filipino Merchants
Insurancecontract
Company,of adhesion, drafted and prepared as it is by the petitioner alone with no
Inc., participation whatsoever on the part of the customers, like De Asis, who merely
adheres to the printed stipulations therein appearing. While contracts of adhesion are
not void
G.R. No. 160544, in themselves, yet this Court will not hesitate to rule out blind adherence
February
21, 2005 thereto if they prove to be one-sided under the attendant facts and circumstances.

Hence, and as aptly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, petitioner must not be
allowed to use its parking claim stub's exclusionary stipulation as a shield from any
responsibility for any loss or damage to vehicles or to the valuables contained therein.
Here, it is evident that De Asis deposited the car in question with the petitioner as part
of the latter's enticement for customers by providing them a safe parking space within
the vicinity of its restaurant. In a very real sense, a safe parking space is an added
attraction to petitioner's restaurant business because customers are thereby somehow
assured that their vehicle are safely kept, rather than parking them elsewhere at their
Copy a sticky
note, then write e
cky
Copy a sntiw rite
note, th oughts.
Copy a stic
note, then wky
rite

own risk. Having entrusted the subject car to petitioner's valet attendant, customer De
your thoughts. your th your thoughts .

Asis, like all of petitioner's customers, fully expects the security of her car while at
petitioner's premises/designated parking areas and its safe return at the end of her
visit at petitioner's restaurant.
CA Agro-Industrial
Development v. CA,

G.R. No. 90027,

The contract in the case at bar is a special kind of
March 3, 1993.
deposit. It cannot be characterized as an ordinary
219 SCRA 426 contract of lease under Article 1643 because the full
and absolute possession and control of the safety
deposit box was not given to the joint renters — the
petitioner and the Pugaos.
The guard key of the box remained with the
respondent Bank; without this key, neither of the
renters could open the box. On the other hand, the
respondent Bank could not likewise open the box
without the renter's key. In this case, the said key
had a duplicate which was made so that both renters
could have access to the box.
e
cky
Copy a sntiw rite
note, th oughts.
your th

CA Agro-Industrial
Development v. CA,
The depositary's responsibility for the safekeeping of the objects deposited in the
case March
G.R. No. 90027, at bar
3, is governed by Title I, Book IV of the Civil Code. Accordingly, the
1993.depositary
219 SCRA 426 would be liable if, in performing its obligation, it is found guilty of fraud,
negligence, delay or contravention of the tenor of the agreement. In the absence of
any stipulation prescribing the degree of diligence required, that of a good father of a
family is to be observed. Hence, any stipulation exempting the depositary from any
liability arising from the loss of the thing deposited on account of fraud, negligence
or delay would be void for being contrary to law and public policy.

It is not correct to assert that the Bank has neither the possession nor control of the
contents of the box since in fact, the safety deposit box itself is located in its
premises and is under its absolute control; moreover, the respondent Bank keeps the
guard key to the said box. As stated earlier, renters cannot open their respective
e
cky
Copy a sntiw rite
note, th oughts.

boxes unless the Bank cooperates by presenting and using this guard key.
your th
Let's begin!
Are you ready?
A deposit made in compliance with a legal
obligation is
a) An extrajudicial deposit;
b) A voluntary deposit;
c) A necessary deposit;
d) A deposit with a warehouseman;
CREDIT TRANSACTIONS

NECESSARY
DEPOSIT
 Necessary Necessary
deposit in deposit
compliance made on
with a legal the
When obligation occasion
deposit is
of any
necessary calamity

Deposit by
travelers in
NECESSARY hotels and inns

Hotel and Inn DEPOSIT

Extent of
liability of
Hotel-keeeppeerr keepers of
hotels and inns
and inn-ke Travellers and

Non-transients guests
ART. 1996. A deposit is necessary:
(1) When it is made in compliance with a
legal obligation;
(2) When it takes place on the occasion of
any calamity, such as fire, storm, flood,
pillage, shipwreck, or other similar events.
(1781a)

Article 1996
ART. 1997. The deposit referred to in No. 1 of the preceding
article shall be governed by the provisions of the
law establishing it, and in case of its deficiency, by the
rules on voluntary deposit.
The deposit mentioned in No. 2 of the preceding article
shall be regulated by the provisions concerning voluntary
deposit and by Article 2168. (1782)

Article 1997
When deposit is
necessary.
When deposit is necessary.

A deposit may be voluntary (Art. 1968.) or necessary.

(1) A voluntary deposit is made by the free will of the
depositor. (Art. 1968.) In a necessary deposit, this freedom of
choice is absent.
(2) Articles 1996 and 1997 mention two kinds of necessary
deposit. The third kind is that made by travellers in hotels or
inns. (Art. 1998.) The fourth kind is that made by passengers
with common carriers. (see Art. 1754.)
Necessary deposit in
compliance
with a legal obligation.
K borrowed P100,000 from B, and as
security thereof, pledged his diamond ring. If
B uses the ring without the authority of K,
may K ask that the ring be judicially or
extrajudicially deposited? Why?
Answer:
Yes.
Art. 2104 — “The creditor cannot use the
thing pledged, without the authority of the
owner, and if he should do so, or should
misuse the thing in any other way, the owner
may ask that it be judicially or extrajudicially
deposited. When the preservation of the
thing pledged requires its use, it must be
used by the creditor but only for that
purpose.”
Necessary deposit in compliance with a legal obligation.

The following are examples of such deposit:

(1) The judicial deposit of a thing the possession of which is
being disputed in a litigation by two or more persons (Art. 538.);
(2) The deposit with a bank or public institution of public bonds
or instruments of credit payable to order or bearer given in
usufruct when the usufructuary does not give proper security
for their conservation (Art. 586.);
(3) The deposit of a thing pledged when the creditor uses the
same without the authority of the owner or misuses it in any
other way (Art. 2104.);
(4) Those required in suits as provided in the Rules of Court;
and
(5) Those constituted to guarantee contracts with the
government.
In this last case, the deposit arises from an obligation of public or
administrative character.
A deposit made in compliance with law is governed primarily
by the provisions of such law, and in default thereof, by the rules
on voluntary deposit. (Art. 1997, par. 1.)
Necessary deposit made
on the occasion
of any calamity.
Necessary deposit made on the occasion of any calamity.
(1) Deposit created by accident or fortuitous event. — In this type
of necessary deposit, the possession of movable property passes
from one person to another by accident or fortuitously through
force of circumstances and which the law imposes on the
recipient the obligations of a bailee. Here, the more immediate
object is to save the property rather than its safekeeping. Thus, if
X saves Y’s television set in a fire, X is supposed to be its
depositary.
Such a quasi-bailment is ordinarily distinguished by the name
involuntary bailment or involuntary deposit. (see 6 Am. Jur. 177.)
There must be a causal relation between the calamity and the
constitution of the deposit. Another name given to it is “deposito
miserable.”1 (11 Manresa, 732.)
(2) Governing rules. — Aside from the provisions concerning
voluntary deposit, this kind shall be governed by Article 2168
(Art. 1997, par. 2.) which reads: “When during a fire, flood, storm
or other calamity, property is saved from destruction by another
person without the knowledge of the owner, the latter is bound
to pay the former just compensation.” Article 2168 establishes a
quasi-contract.
ART. 1998. The deposit of effects made by travellers
in hotels or inns shall also be regarded as necessary. The
keepers of hotels or inns shall be responsible for them as
depositaries, provided that notice was given to them, or
to their employees, of the effects brought by the guests
and that, on the part of the latter, they take the precautions
which said hotel-keepers or their substitutes advised
relative to the care and vigilance of their effects. (1783)

Article 1998
ART. 1999. The hotel-keeper is liable for the
vehicles, animals and articles which have
been introduced or placed in the annexes
of the hotel.

Article 1999
Deposit by travellers in
hotels
and inns.
A traveller spent a night in a Makati hotel. A hotel servant
maliciously destroyed the cellular phone of the traveller. Is the
hotel-keeper liable?
ANS.:
Yes, provided that he had previously been informed about the
cellular phone, and provided furthermore that the traveller
followed any precaution that may have been given by the hotel-
keeper or his substitutes regarding the care and vigilance of
said property.
Deposit by travellers in hotels and inns.
Before keepers of hotels or inns may be held responsible as
depositaries with regard to the effects of their guests, the
following elements must concur:
(1) They have been previously informed about the effects
brought by the guests; and
(2) The latter have taken the precautions prescribed regarding
their safekeeping.
Extent of liability of
keepers of hotels
and inns.
Due to the continuous heavy rainfall, the major streets in Manila
became flooded. This compelled Cris to check-in at Square One
Hotel. As soon as Cris got off from his Toyota Altis, the Hotel’s
parking attendant got the key of his car and gave him a valet
parking customer’s claim stub. The attendant parked his car at
the basement of the hotel. Early in the morning, Cris was
informed by the hotel manager that his car was carnapped.

What is the liability, if any, of the Hotel for the loss of Cris’ car?
ANSWER: The hotel is liable for the cost of the car as actual
damages.
Article 1999 of the Civil Code provides
The hotel-keeper is liable for the vehicles, animals and articles
which have been introduced or placed in the annexes of the
hotel.
The keepers of hotels or inns shall be responsible for them as
depositaries, provided that notice was given to them, or to their
employees, of the effects brought by the guests and that, on the
part of the latter, they take the precautions which said hotel-
keepers or their substitutes advised relative to the care and
vigilance of their effects.
Extent of liability of keepers of hotels and inns.
The liability is not limited to effects lost or damaged in the
hotel rooms which come under the term “baggage” or articles
such as clothing as are ordinarily used by travellers but include
those lost or damaged in hotel annexes such as vehicles in the
hotel’s garage.
The responsibility imposed extends to all those who offer
lodging for a compensation, whatever may be their character. (11
Manresa 759.)
Terms explained
Terms explained.
(1) The words “travellers” and “guests,” as used by law, are
synonymous. It refers to transients and not to boarders.
Nontransients
are governed by the rules on lease.
(2) The terms “hotel-keeper” and “inn-keeper” are also
synonymous.
(a) Hotel. — It has been defined as “a building of many
rooms chiefl y for overnight accommodation of transients
and several fl oors served by elevators, usually with a large
open street-level lobby containing easy chairs, with a variety
of compartments for eating, drinking, dancing, exhibitions,
and group meetings, with shops having both inside and
street-side entrances and offering for sale items of particular
interest to a traveller, or providing personal services, and
with telephone booths, writing tables, and wash rooms freely
available.” (Webster’s Third New Int. Dictionary, p. 1095.)
(b) Inn. — It has been defined as “a public house for the
lodging of travellers for compensation and until capacity is
reached; a place of public entertainment that does not
provide
lodging.” (Ibid., p. 1165.)