Feb-4-cred-trans.docx

BPI V IAC 164 SCRA 630

Bank has not shown how the transaction involving the cashier's check is related to the transaction involving the dollar draft in favor of Dizon financed by the withdrawal from Rizaldy's dollar account.

FACTS: 

 Original parties Rizaldy Zshornack initiated filed a complaint against COMTRUST for four causes of action. o CFI, ruled in favor of Rizaldy except for the third cause of action

IAC, absolved the bank from liability from the fourth cause of action  Ordered COMTRUST to restore to the dollar savings account of plaintiff the amount of U.S $1,000 with interest  To return to the plaintiff the amount of U.S. $3,000 without interest for the reason that the said amount was merely held in custody for safekeeping, but was not actually deposited with the defendant COMTRUST because being cash currency, it cannot by law be deposited with plaintiffs dollar account and defendant's only obligation is to return the same to plaintiff upon demand  Damages



The record reveals that the amount withdrawn was used to finance a dollar draft in favor of Leovigilda D. Dizon, and not to fund the current account of the Zshornacks. As to the second cause of action: Zshornack entrusted to COMTRUST, thru Garcia, US $3,000.00 cash (greenbacks) for safekeeping. 

Bank filed an appeal seeking to be absolved from any obligation. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE: Sps. Zschornack maintained a dollar savings account and peso current account with COMTRUST 

An application for a dollar draft was accomplished by Virgilio V. Garcia, Assistant Branch Manager of COMTRUST payable to Dizon for $1,000 o The said amount was to be charged to the Sps. Dollar savings account.

RIzaldy noticed the withdrawal of US$1,000.00 from his account, he demanded an explanation from the bank.  COMTRUST claimed that the peso value of the withdrawal was given to Atty. Ernesto Zshornack, Jr., brother of Rizaldy  Ernesto encashed a check for P 8 450 issued by manila banking ISSUE: WON THE BANK SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE

Ernesto Zshornack, Jr., possesses a personality distinct and separate from Rizaldy Zshornack. Payment made to Ernesto cannot be considered payment to Rizaldy.

It was alleged in the complaint that the bank refused to return the money o COMTRUST explained that the money was disposed of:  $2,000.00 was sold for P14 920 which was deposited to Rizaldy’s current account  $1,000.00 was sold for P8 350 which was deposited to his current account accomplished by Garcia

Bank now argues that the contract that was entered into by the parties is a contract of depositum which banks do not enter into  It now claims that Garcia exceeded his powers and the bank cannot be held liable as the contract/obligation is purely personal to Garcia Court finds that Garcia act of entering the contract binds the corporation – as there was no sworn answer denying such. The intention of the parties was for the bank to safekeep the money and return it to Rizaldy at a later time.  

Note that the object of the contract between Zshornack and COMTRUST was foreign exchange Hence, the transaction was covered by Central Bank Circular No. 20, Restrictions on Gold and Foreign Exchange Transactions

HELD: YES As to the first cause of action:  The bank claims that the withdrawal was made pursuant to an agreement where Zshornack allegedly authorized the bank to withdraw from his dollar savings account such amount which, when converted to pesos, would be needed to fund his peso current account.

SEC. 6. All receipts of foreign exchange by any resident person, firm, company or corporation shall be sold to authorized agents of the Central Bank by the recipients within one business day following the receipt of such foreign exchange. Any resident person, firm, company or corporation residing or located within the Philippines, who acquires foreign exchange shall not, unless authorized by the Central Bank, dispose of such foreign exchange in whole or in part, nor receive less than its full value, nor delay taking ownership thereof except as such delay is customary; Provided, That, within one business day upon taking ownership or receiving payment of foreign exchange the aforementioned persons and entities shall sell such foreign exchange to the authorized agents of the Central Bank.

1

 

The parties did not intended to sell the US dollars to the Central Bank within one business day from receipt. Otherwise, the contract of depositum would never have been entered into at all.

The mere safekeeping of the greenbacks, without selling them to the Central Bank within one business day from receipt, is a transaction which is not authorized by CB Circular No. 20, it must be considered as one which falls under the general class of prohibited transactions.  Pursuant to Article 5 of the Civil Code, it is void, having been executed against the provisions of a mandatory/prohibitory law. Being in pari delicto they shall not have a cause of action against each other

2

TRIPLE-V V FILIPINO MERCHANTS GR NO. 160544 FACTS:  De Asis dined at Kamayan restaurant at Quezon City he was using a Mitsubishi assigned to her by employer Crispa Textile Inc.  She availed of valet parking service of petitioner entrusted her car key to petitioner's valet counter.  The car was then parked by petitioner's valet attendant, a certain Madridano o She received a ticket for this  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 (1 Crispa filed a claim against its insurer Filipino Merchants  Having indemnified Crispa P 669 500 Filipino Merchants filed with RTC an action for damages against Triple V Petitioner argued that the complaint failed to aver facts to support the allegations of recklessness and negligence committed in the safekeeping and custody of the subject vehicle, claiming 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  In addition, they argued that De Asis received a ticket which states. o Management and staff will not be responsible for any loss of or damage incurred on the vehicle nor of valuables contained therein" --- this amounts to an explicit waiver of any right to claim and De Asis assumed the risk of loss RTC, ruled in favor of Filipino Merchants  Triple V is not therefore precluded from taking appropriate action against defendant Armando Madridano.

insurance, guaranty or surety for the loss of the car was constituted when De Asis availed of its free valet parking service. o Deposit may be constituted even without any consideration o 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. The parking 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 contract of adhesion  This Court will not hesitate to rule out blind adherence thereto if they prove to be one-sided under the attendant facts and circumstances. Petitioner must not be allowed to use its parking claim stub's exclusionary stipulation as a shield from any responsibility.  

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.

As to the subrogation:  Crispa paid a premium of P10,304 to cover theft.  FMCI properly subrogated Crispa’s rights TRIPLE-V is negligent

CA, dismissed appeal ISSUE: (1) (2) (3)

WON Triple V was a depositary of the vehicle WON petitioner was negligent WON there was valid subrogation

HELD: (1)

YES

When De Asis entrusted the car in question to petitioners valet attendant she expected her car to be safe.  Petitioner was constituted as a depositary of the same car  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

3

CA-AGRO V CA 219 SCRA 426 FACTS:  CA-Agro purchased from Sps. Pugao 2 parcels of land for P 350 000 o P75,725.00 was paid as downpayment while the balance was covered by three (3) postdated checks. Among the terms and agreement  Was the titles to the lots shall be transferred to the petitioner upon full payment of the purchase price and that the owner's copies of TCT shall be deposited in a safety deposit box of any bank.  The same could be withdrawn only upon the joint signatures of a representative of the petitioner and the Pugaos upon full payment of the purchase price. CA-Agro through Aguirre and the spouses rented a Safety Deposit Box of private respondent Security Bank. They signed a contract of lease which states 13. The bank is not a depositary of the contents of the safe and it has neither the possession nor control of the same. 14. The bank has no interest whatsoever in said contents, except herein expressly provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith 

After they signed such, both parties were given keys and one guard key was left with the bank. o It has 2 key holes one for the renter’s key, one for the guard key and the box can be opened only with the two keys o The TCTs were placed inside the box

A certain Mrs. Margarita Ramos offered to buy from the petitioner the two (2) lots at a price.  Mrs. Ramos demanded the execution of a deed of sale which necessarily entailed the production of the certificates of title.  Aguirre, accompanied by the Pugaos, then proceeded to Securtity Bank to open the safety deposit box and get the certificates of title  However, when opened in the presence of the Bank's representative, the box yielded no such certificates. o Because of the delay, Ramos withdrew her offer the petitioner allegedly failed to realize the expected profit of P280,500.00.

CA, affirmed the decision of the lower court  Principally on the theory that the contract executed by the petitioner and respondent Bank is in the nature of a contract of lease  By virtue of which the petitioner and its co-renter were given control over the safety deposit box and its contents while the Bank retained no right to open the said box because it had neither the possession nor control over it and its contents. o Citing ART 1643 of the Civil Code ISSUE: WON Security Bank should be held liable HELD: Court agrees with the petitioner's contention that the contract for the rent of the safety deposit box is not an ordinary contract of lease as defined in Article 1643 of the Civil Code. The contract in this case is SPECIAL KIND DEPOSIT It cannot be characterized as an ordinary 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.  Having a guard key and without this key, neither of the renters could open the box.  The respondent Bank could not likewise open the box without the renter's key. It is clear that the depositary cannot open the box without the renter being present. The prevailing rule is that the relation between a bank renting out safe-deposit boxes and its customer with respect to the contents of the box is that of a bail or and bailee, the bailment being for hire and mutual benefit. In renting put safety deposit boxes ,he prevailing rule in the United States has been adopted. Sec. 72. In addition to the operations specifically authorized elsewhere in this Act, banking institutions other than building and loan associations may perform the following services: (a) Receive in custody funds, documents, and valuable objects, and rent safety deposit boxes for the safeguarding of such effects. xxx xxx xxx The banks shall perform the services permitted under subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this section as depositories or as agents. . . . (emphasis supplied)

A case was filed by CA Agro against respondent bank for damages Security Bank claimed, petitioner has no cause of action because of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the contract of lease – it then interposed a counterclaim for damages RTC, dismissed the complaint based on paragraph 13 and 14



The depositary's responsibility for the safekeeping of the objects deposited in the case at bar is governed by Title I, Book IV of the Civil Code.

4



The depositary 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 present case, the stipulations under paragraph 13 and 14 are void  Said provisions are inconsistent with the respondent Bank's responsibility as a depositary under Section 72(a) of the General Banking Act.  Condition 13 stands on a wrong premise and is contrary to the actual practice of the Bank. o 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

The company, in renting safe-deposit boxes, cannot exempt itself from liability for loss of the contents by its own fraud or negligence or that of its agents or servants, and if a provision of the contract may be construed as an attempt to do so, it will be held ineffective for the purpose. However, no evidence was submitted to reveal that the loss of the certificates of title was due to the fraud or negligence of the respondent Bank.

5

ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP V DELA PENA 26 PHIL 144

FACTS:  The plaintiff is the trustee of a charitable bequest made for the construction of a leper hospital o Father Agustin de la Peña was the duly authorized representative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. 

On the other hand Gregorio dela Pena is the administrator of the estate of Father De la Peña.

1898 the books Father De la Peña, as trustee, showed that he had on hand as trustee a sum P6,641 collected by him for the charitable purposes.  He deposited in his personal account P19,000 in the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank at Iloilo.  During the war of the revolution, Father De la Peña was arrested by the military authorities as a political prisoner o The arrest of Father De la Peña and the confiscation of the funds in the bank were the result of the claim of the military authorities that he was an insurgent and that the funds thus deposited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes o The funds were turned over to the Government

As to the question whether he is negligent in depositing the money in the bank or whether he was more or less negligent by depositing the money in his personal account than he would have been if he had deposited it in a separate account as trustee. 

There was no law prohibiting him from depositing it as he did and there was no law which changed his responsibility be reason of the deposit.

While it may be true that one who is under obligation to do or give a thing is in duty bound, when he sees events approaching the results of which will be dangerous to his trust, to take all reasonable means and measures to escape or, if unavoidable, to temper the effects of those events, we do not feel constrained to hold that, in choosing between two means equally legal, he is culpably negligent in selecting one whereas he would not have been if he had selected the other. THE COURT HELD  

The money which is the subject matter of this action was deposited by Father De la Peña in the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; That said money was forcibly taken from the bank by the armed forces of the United States during the war of the insurrection; and that said Father De la Peña was not responsible for its loss.

ISSUE: WON the 6K trust fund was included in the 19 000 deposited in the bank. 

Said trust funds were a part of the funds deposited and which were removed and confiscated by the military authorities of the United States.

Although the Civil Code states that "a person obliged to give something is also bound to preserve it with the diligence pertaining to a good father of a family"  It also provides the principle of the Roman law, major casus est, cui humana infirmitas resistere non potest, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which having been foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of the cases expressly mentioned in the law or those in which the obligation so declares." 

By placing the money in the bank and mixing it with his personal funds De la Peña did not thereby assume an obligation different from that under which he would have lain if such deposit had not been made, o nor did he thereby make himself liable to repay the money at all hazards o The fact that he placed the trust fund in the bank in his personal account does not add to his responsibility.

Such deposit did not make him a debtor who must respond at all hazards.

Durban Apartments Corporation vs. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation G. R. No. 179419 January 12, 2011 J. Nachura Facts:   

That on July 22, 2003, Pioneer Insurance by right of subrogation, filed with the RTC Makati a Complaint for Recovery of Damages against Durban Apartments (or City Garden Hotel) and Vicente Justimbaste (valet driver). Pioneer said that it is the insurer of loss and damage of Jeffrey S. See’s 2001 Suzuki Grand Vitara amounting to 1.175M That on April 30, 2002, See arrived and checked in at City Garden Hotel before midnight

6





   



That upon arrival at the City Garden Hotel, See gave notice to the doorman and parking attendant of the said hotel, Justimbaste, about his Vitara when he entrusted its ignition key to the latter. o Issued a valet parking customer claim stub to See o Parked the VItara at the Equitable PCI Bank parking are and placed the ignition key inside a safety key box while See proceeded to the hotel lobby to check in. On May 1, 2002, at about 1am, See received a phone call where the Hotel Chief Security Officer, thereafter reported the incident to the Operation Division of the Makati City Police Anti-Carnapping Unit and a lash alarm was issued The police investigated o Hotel Security Officer Ernesto Horlador o Parking attendant Justimbaste See executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay to the police investigator o Filed a complaint sheet with the PNP Traffic Management Group in Camp Crame Pioneer paid the 1.163M money claim of See as indemnity for the loss of the VItara The Vitara was lost due to the negligence of Durban Apartments and Justimbaste because it was discovered during the investigation that this was the second time that a similar incident of car napping happened in the valet parking service and no necessary precautions were taken to prevent its repetition Durban Apartments was wanting in due diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees particularly defendant Justimbaste o Both failed and refused to pay it valid, just and lawful claim despite written demands

Issue: W/N Durban Apartments can be held liable for the loss of See’s vehicle, YES W/N there has been a contract of necessary deposit between the insured See and Durban Apartments, YES

thing delivered is not the principal purpose of the contract, there is no deposit but some other contract. Art. 1998. The deposit of effects made by travelers 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.

Joseph Chan, Wilson Chan and Lilu Chan vs. Bonifacio Maceda G. R. No. 142591 April 30, 2003 J. Sandoval-Guttierez Facts:  

  

Ruling: From the facts found by the lower courts, the insured See deposited his vehicle for safekeeping with petitioner, through the latter’s employee, Justimbaste. In turn, Justinbaste issued a claim stub to See. Thus the contract of deposit was perfected from See’s delivery, when he handed over to Justimbaste the keys to his vehicle, which Justimbaste received with the obligation of safely keeping and returning it. Ultimately, petitioner is liable for the loss of See’s vehicle.





Article 1962, in relation to Article 1998, of the Civil Code defines a contract of deposit and a necessary deposit made by persons in hotels or inns: Art. 1962. A deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a thing belonging to another, with the obligation of safely keeping it and returning the same. If the safekeeping of the



That Bonifacio Maceda obtained a 7.3M loan from DBP for the construction of his New Grand Hotel Project in Tacloban City Maceda executed a construction contract with Moreman Builders for the construction of his hotel. o Maceda bought construction materials and equipments which Moreman deposited in the warehouse of Wilson and Lily Chan o The deposit was free of charge Moreman failed to finish the construction of the hotel at the stipulated time Maceda filed a case for rescission and damages against them o RTC ruled in favor of Maceda While the case is pending, Maceda demanded from Chan the deposited materials o Chan said that these materials have been withdrawn by Moreman in 1977 Maceda still filed an action for damages and preliminary attachment against Chan o It was dismissed after 4years by RTC – for failure to prosecute o After 5years a motion for reconsideration was filed but was denied by RTC RTC ruled for the following: o Declared Chan in default o Maceda presented witnesses to show that the construction materials were indeed deposited to the warehouse – favored Maceda o Stated that since the materials stored by Moreman builders without any lien or encumbrance, Chan was duty bound to release it CA: affirmed RTC

7

Issue: W/N there existed a contract of deposit between the parties, NO

Facts: 

Ruling:  In a contract of deposit, the burden of proof proving the contract is on the plaintiff. In the case at bar, there is no record of any contract of deposit bet the parties. The delivery receipts presented also lack probative value so as to prove the existence of the contract for they are unsigned and not duly authenticated by Moreman or by Maceda. Moreover, Maceda also failed to prove that there were construction materials and equipment in petitioner’s warehouse at the time he made a demand for their return. The respondent failed to prove the:  Existence of any contract of deposit between him and petitioner, nor between the petitioner and Moreman in his favor  That there were construction materials in petitioner’s warehouse at the time of respondents demand to return the same, we that the petitioner’s have no corresponding obligation or liability to respondent with respect to those construction materials Under Article 1311 of the Civil Code, contracts are binding upon the parties (and their assigns and heirs) who execute them. When there is no privity of contract, there is likewise no obligation or liability to speak about and thus no cause of action arises. Specifically, in an action against the depositary, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the bailment or deposit and the performance of conditions precedent to the right of action. A depositary is obliged to return the thing to the depositor, or to his heirs or successors, or to the person who may have been designated in the contract.

YHT REALTY CORPORATION, ERLINDA LAINEZ and ANICIA PAYAM vs. CA and MAURICE McLOUGHLIN G. R. No. 126780 February 17, 2005 J. Tinga Foreigner rented an SDB and placed valuables there, some of which he lost. He wanted to hold the hotel liable but it cited the Undertaking that the foreigner signed or executed, which said that the hotel shall not be held liable for such losses. Now, the foreigner is contesting these provisions of the Undertaking. He won, since the provisions violated NCC 2003. END!



McLoughlin is an Australian businessman-philanthropist who usually visits PH. His contact here is Brunhilda Tan. Lopez was the hotel manager, while Lainez and Payam had custody of the keys of the safety deposit boxes [SDB]. SDB procedure—The SDB could only be opened using two keys—one given to the registered guest, and the other in the possession of hotel management. When the guest wants to open the SDB, only he can personally request the management, and an employee would accompany the guest to assist in opening the SDB with the two keys.

When McLoughlin arrived from Australia, he registered with Tropicana and rented an SDB. He allegedly had 3 envelopes (US $10k; US $5k; AUS $10k), 2 envelopes containing letters and credit cards, 2 bank books, and a checkbook in his SDB. Before leaving for a brief trip, he opened his SDB to get some items. He found that one envelope contained only USD $3k. He checked out of Tropicana upon returning to Manila, and he eventually discovered that an envelope was short of $5k. Some jewelry he bought went missing. When he inquired about this, he did not receive a favorable response. He registered again in Tropicana, and placed in the SDB three envelopes (US $15k; AUS $10k; documents). Twelve days later, he noticed that the USD envelope lacked $2k, while the AUSD envelope lacked AUS $4.5k. When he confronted Lainez and Payam, they admitted that it was Tan who opened the SDB, who admitted stealing his key. Lopez wrote a promissory note—I promise to pay Mr. Maurice McLoughlin the amount of AUS$4k and US$2k or its equivalent in Philippine currency on or before May 5, 1988. Lopez requested Tan to sign the promissory note and Lopez also signed as a witness. Despite the execution of promissory note by Tan, McLoughlin insisted that it must be the hotel who must assume responsibility for the loss he suffered. However, Lopez refused to accept the responsibility relying on the conditions for renting the SDB (Undertaking For The Use of Safety Deposit Box): To release and hold free and blameless the hotel from any liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or use of the SDB for any cause whatsoever, including but not limited to the presentation or use thereof by any other person should the key be lost To return the key and execute the release in favor of the hotel upon giving up the use of the SDB McLoughlin consulted his lawyers in Australia, and they said that the stipulations are void for being violative of universal hotel practices and customs. His lawyers prepared a letter, and sent it to President Corazon Aquino. The matter was eventually referred to the Western Police District. Eventually, a complaint for damages was filed against YHT Realty Corporation, Lopez, Lainez, Payam and Tan for the loss of money, but trial proceeded without Lopez and Tan. During the trial, McLoughlin had been in and out of the country to attend to urgent business in Australia, and while staying in the Philippines to attend the hearing, he incurred various expenses; hence, the SC award. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of McLoughlin. It found that defendants acted with gross negligence in the performance and exercise of their duties and obligations

8

as innkeepers and were therefore liable to answer for the losses incurred by McLoughlin. It ruled that the aforementioned provisions of the Undertaking are not valid for being contrary to the express mandate of NCC 2003 and against public policy. Thus, there being fraud or wanton conduct on the part of defendants, they should be responsible for all damages which may be attributed to the nonperformance of their contractual obligations. CA affirmed RTC, except as to the amount of damages awarded ISSUE: W/N the Undertaking for the Use of Safety Deposit Box executed by McLoughlin is null and void. YES RATIO: NCC 2003 was incorporated as an expression of public policy. The hotel business like the common carrier’s business is imbued with public interest. The twin duty constitutes the essence of the business: hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging for hotel guests and security to their persons and belongings. The law does not allow such duty to the public to be negated or diluted by any contrary stipulation in so-called “undertakings” that ordinarily appear in prepared forms imposed by hotel keepers on guests for their signature. In an early case, it was held that it is not necessary that the guests’ effects be actually delivered to the innkeepers or their employees, as it is enough that such effects are within the hotel. With greater reason should the liability of the hotelkeeper be enforced when the items are taken without the guest’s knowledge and consent from an SDB provided by the hotel itself. Paragraphs (2) and (4) of the “undertaking” manifestly contravene NCC 2003. The undertaking was intended to bar any claim against Tropicana for any loss of the contents of the SDB, WON negligence was incurred by Tropicana or its employees. The NCC is explicit that the responsibility of the hotelkeeper 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. In this case, the thief (Tan) employed no use of arms or an irresistible force to qualify as force majeure, so the hotel is not exempted from liability.

NOTES: Given the established SDB procedure, is inevitable to conclude that the management had at least a hand in the consummation of the taking. The employees even admitted that they assisted Tan on three (!) separate occasions in opening McLoughlin’s SDB. 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. FAIL DEFENSE OF HOTEL: We thought Ms. Tan was your wife, Mr. McLoughlin! To which SC says: Mere close companionship and intimacy are not enough to warrant such conclusion considering that what is involved in the instant case is the very safety of McLoughlin’s deposit. (haha) If only petitioners exercised due diligence, they should have confronted him as to his relationship with Tan considering that the latter had been observed opening McLoughlin’s SDB a number of times at the early hours of the morning.  



NCC 1170 ~ Those who, in the performance of their obligations, are guilty of negligence, are liable for damages. NCC 2180 (4) 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. If an employee is found negligent, it is presumed that the employer was negligent in selecting and/or supervising him. 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 SDB 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 NCC 2194.

Petitioners likewise anchor their defense on NCC 2002, to which SC says NO WAY! The justification would render nugatory the public interest sought to be protected. What if the negligence of the employer or its employees facilitated the consummation of a crime committed by the registered guest’s relatives or visitor? Should the law exculpate the hotel from liability since the loss was due to the act of the visitor of the registered guest of the hotel? Hence, this provision presupposes that the hotelkeeper is not guilty of concurrent negligence or has not contributed in any degree to the occurrence of the loss. A depositary is not responsible for the loss of goods by theft, unless his actionable negligence contributes to the loss. Tropicana was guilty of concurrent negligence. To rule otherwise would result in undermining the safety of the SDBs in hotels, for the management will be given imprimatur to allow any person, under the pretense of being a family member or a visitor of the guest, to have access without fear of any liability that will attach in case such person turns out to be a complete stranger.

9