1 | C r e d i t

YHT Corporation v. CA (2005)Tinga

2 | C r e d i t

Under what topic: Necessary Deposit

Petitioner: YHT REALTY CORPORATION (hotel owner), ERLINDA LAINEZ AND ANICIA PAYAM (employees /EEs)

Respondent: THE COURT OF APPEALS AND MAURICE MCLOUGHLIN

Synopsis: McLoughlin was a philanthropist and businessman who came to the Philippines a lot for charity. He was befriended by Tan who convinced him to switch hotels and stay at the Tropicana, which was owned by YHT. During his stay, he rented a safety deposit box which could only be opened by using 2 keys: one assigned to him and another with the management of the hotel. On one particular trip, McLaughlin noticed that large sums of money and jewelry were missing from his safety deposit box, but he took no action on the matter. On his next trip, however, more money was missing and when he confronted the manager and two of its employees, they admitted that had been helping Tan open the box. The hotel tried to get out of liability through the “Undertaking for the Use of the Deposit Box” (see footnote 1 for contents) which McLoughlin signed, which stipulated that Tropicana was free from any liability for the loss in the contents and/or use of the said deposit box for any cause whatsoever. It also cited Art. 2002 which exempts the hotel-keeper from liability if the loss is due to the acts of his guest, his family, or visitors. The Court held that the “undertaking for the use of the deposit box” is null and void. 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 in allowing Tan, who was not the registered guest, to open the safety deposit box of McLoughlin, even assuming that the latter was also guilty of negligence in allowing another person to use his key. To rule otherwise would result in undermining the safety of the safety deposit boxes 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 to the safety deposit box without fear of any liability that will attach thereafter in case such person turns out to be a complete stranger. This will allow the hotel to evade responsibility for any liability incurred by its employees in conspiracy with the guest's relatives and visitors.

Doctrine: The hotel business like the common carrier's business is imbued with public interest. Hotel keepers are bound to provide not only lodging for hotel guests and security to their persons and belongings. The law in turn 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. It is the loss through force majeure that may spare the hotel-keeper from liability. In the case at bar, there was no showing that the act of the thief or robber was done with the use of arms or through an irresistible force to qualify the same as force majeure.

3 | C r e d i t

Facts:

McLoughlin (ML), an Australian businessman philanthropist often visited the Philippines to do charitable work.

He met Tan (a womaaan) who befriended him and convinced him to stay in Tropicana hotel, owned by YHT Corp.

McLoughlin rented a safety deposit box in Tropicana during his stay there. The safety deposit box could only be opened through the use of 2 keys, one of which is given to McLoughlin and the other in the possession of the management of the hotel. He alone could personally request the management who then would assign one of its employees to accompany the guest and assist him in opening the box with the TWO keys.

McLoughlin placed 15,000 USD in two envelopes (10,000 and 5,000) and 10,000 AUS in another envelope.

He left for a brief trip for Hong Kong and took 5,000 USD and 10,000 AUS. He discovered that 2,000 USD were missing. He didn’t mind thinking it was just a result of bad accounting.

He returned back to the Phil and went back to Australia. He took the contents out of the box. In Australia, he discovered 5,000 AUS and jewellery he bought in HK were missing.

He went back to the Philippines and again deposited 15,000 USD in one envelope and 10,000 AUS in another envelope with Tropicana.

He discovered that 2,000 USD and 4,500 AUS were missing. Upon discovering the loss, he confronted Lainez and Payam (employees of Tropicana) who ADMITTED that Tan opened the box with the key assigned to McLoughlin. Tan also ADMITTED that she had stolen the key while he was asleep.

McLoughlin filed a case for damages against YHT, Lainez, Payam, and Tan. The RTC and CA found for McLoughlin and held that YHT, Tan, Lainez and Payam were solidarily liable for damages.

YHT appealed and argued that the hotel management should be free from liability because of the “Undertaking For the Use of Safety Deposit Box” which McLoughlin signed.1

Issue/s - Holding:

1 2. To release and hold free and blameless TROPICANA APARTMENT HOTEL from any liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or use of the said deposit box for any cause whatsoever, including but not limited to the presentation or use thereof by any other person should the key be lost;... 4. To return the key and execute the RELEASE in favor of TROPICANA APARTMENTHOTEL upon giving up the use of the box.

4 | C r e d i t

W/N the “Undertaking For the Use of Safety Deposit Box” admittedly executed by the evidence on record is null and void - YES

Ratio:

Art. 2003 states that: The hotel-keeper cannot free himself from responsibility by posting notices to the effect that he is not liable for the articles brought by the guest. Any stipulation between the hotel-keeper and the guest whereby the responsibility of the former as set forth in articles 1998 to 2001 is suppressed or diminished shall be void. (n)

The hotel business like the common carrier’s business is imbued with public interest. Catering to the public, hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging for hotel guests but also security to their persons and belongings. The twin duty constitutes the essence of the business. The law in turn 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.

To hold the hotelkeepers or inkeepers liable for the belongings

of the guests, it is enough that such belongings are within the hotel or inn (no need to be actually delivered to the EEs)

Paragraphs (2) and (4) of the “undertaking” manifestly contravene Article 2003 for they allow Tropicana to be released from liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or use of the safety deposit box for any cause whatsoever.

o The undertaking was intended to bar any claim against Tropicana for any loss of the contents of the safety deposit box whether or not negligence was incurred by Tropicana or its employees.

o The New Civil Code is explicit that the responsibility of the hotel-keeper 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 THE CASE AT BAR, THERE IS NO SHOWING THAT THE ACT OF THE THIEF OR ROBBER WAS DONE WITH THE USE OF ARMS OR THROUGH AN IRRESISTIBLE FORCE TO

5 | C r e d i t

QUALIFY THE SAME AS FORCE MAJEURE.

Petitioners anchor their defense on Article 2002: The hotel-keeper is not liable for compensation if the loss is due to the acts of the guest, his family, servants or visitors, or if the loss arises from the character of the things brought into the hotel. (n) - this provision presupposes that the hotel-keeper is not guilty of concurrent ngligence or has not contributed in any degree to the ccurrence of the loss.

o In the case at bar, the responsibility of securing the safety deposit box was shared not only by the guest himself but also by the management since two keys are necessary to open the safety deposit box. Without the assistance of hotel employees, the loss would not have occurred.

Dispositive:HEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 19 October 1995 is hereby AFFIRMED. Petitioners are directed, jointly and severally, to pay private respondent the following amounts: puro damages lang

Digester’s notes (haba nung case daming chuchu):Other issues:

Petitioner: Finding of gross negligence is not supported by evidence

SC: evidence reveals that 2 keys are required to open the safety box (one with the guest and the other with the management). The guest alone canot open the safety box without the assistance of the employees. Thus, in case of loss, it is inevitable to conclude that mngt had a hand in the consummation of the taking (unless force majeure). -- Noteworthy is the fact that Payam and Lainez had custody of the master key when the loss took place and Payam even admitted that she assisted Tan three times in opening the safety box while ML was sleeping.

Petitioner: McLoughlin, by his act, made its EEs believe that Tan was his spouse for she was always with him.

SC: Mere close companionship and intimacy are not enough to warrant such conclusion. EEs should’ve exercised due diligence by asking ML as to his relatioship with Tan.