YHT REALTY CORPORATION, ERLINDA LAINEZ and ANICIA PAYAM, petitioners

VS.

THE COURT OF APPEALS and MAURICE McLOUGHLIN, respondents.G.R. No. 126780

FACTS

Respondent McLoughlin would always stay at Tropicana Hotel every time he is here in thePhilippines and
would rent a safety deposit box. The safety deposit box could only be openedthrough the use of 2 keys,
one of which is given to the registered guest, and the other remaining inthe possession of the
management of the hotel.McLoughlin allegedly placed the following in his safety deposit box – 2
envelopes containingUS Dollars, one envelope containing Australian Dollars, Letters, credit cards,
bankbooks and acheckbook.On 12 December 1987, before leaving for a brief trip, McLoughlin took some
items from thesafety box which includes the ff: envelope containing Five Thousand US Dollars
(US$5,000.00), theother envelope containing Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00), his
passports and hiscredit cards. The other items were left in the deposit box. Upon arrival, he found out
that a fewdollars were missing and the jewelry he bought was likewise missing.Eventually, he confronted
Lainez and Paiyam who admitted that Tan opened the safetydeposit box with the key assigned to him.
McLoughlin went up to his room where Tan was stayingand confronted her. Tan admitted that she had
stolen McLouglin’s key and was able to open thesafety deposit box with the assistance of Lopez, Paiyam
and Lainez. Lopez also told McLoughlinthat Tan stole the key assigned to McLouglin while the latter was
asleep.McLoughlin insisted that it must be the hotel who must assume responsibility for the loss
hesuffered. Lopez refused to accept responsibility relying on the conditions for renting the safetydeposit
box entitled “Undertaking For the Use of Safety Deposit Box”

ISSUE

WON the “Undertaking for the Use of Safety Deposit Box” admittedly executed by privaterespondent is
null and void.
HELD

YES Article 2003 was incorporated in the New Civil Code as an expression of public policyprecisely to
apply to situations such as that presented in this case. The hotel business like thecommon carrier’s
business is imbued with public interest. Catering to the public, hotelkeepers arebound to provide not
only lodging for hotel guests and security to their persons and belongings. The twin duty constitutes the
essence of the business. The law in turn does not allow such duty tothe public to be negated or diluted
by any contrary stipulation in so-called “undertakings” thatordinarily appear in prepared forms imposed
by hotel keepers on guests for their signature.In an early case (De Los Santos v. Tan Khey), CA ruled that
to hold hotelkeepers orinnkeeper liable for the effects of their guests, it is not necessary that they be
actually delivered tothe innkeepers or their employees. It is enough that such effects are within the hotel
or inn. Withgreater reason should the liability of the hotelkeeper be enforced when the missing items
aretaken without the guest’s knowledge and consent from a safety deposit box provided by the
hotelitself, as in this case.Paragraphs (2) and (4) of the “undertaking” manifestly contravene Article 2003,
CC for theyallow Tropicana to be released from liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or use
of thesafety deposit box for any cause whatsoever. Evidently, the undertaking was intended to bar
anyclaim against Tropicana for any loss of the contents of the safety deposit box whether or
notnegligence was incurred by Tropicana or its employees. The New Civil Code is explicit that
theresponsibility of the hotel-keeper shall extend to loss of, or injury to, the personal property of
theguests even if caused by servants or employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well as
bystrangers, except as it may proceed from any force majeure.