TRIPLE V v.

FILIPINO MERCHANTS
G.R. No. 160544 (2005)
Asuncion, J. / alo

SUBJECT MATTER: Credit Transactions > Deposit

CASE SUMMARY:

This is the case of the valet and the missing car. De Asis availed of the complimentary valet service at a restaurant owned by TVFSI to
park her company car (owned by CTI). The car went missing and was never recovered. TVFSI argued that it was not a depositary of the
car and that it did not commit any negligence. However, the SC ruled that a contract of deposit existed between De Asis and TVFSI, thus
making the latter liable for the non-return of the object of deposit.

DOCTRINES:

 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.

FACTS:

Petitioners Triple-V Food Services, Inc. (TVFSI)

Respondents Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc. (FMIC)

 De Asis, employee of Crispa Textile Inc. (CTI), dined at Kamayan Restaurant (owned by TVFSI) in Quezon City.
 Prior to entering said restaurant, De Asis availed of the complimentary valet service to park her company car (a Mitsubishi
Galant Super Saloon Model 1995). She was issued a parking ticket.
 A few minutes after Madridano, the valet attendant, parked said car, he noticed that the car went missing from the parking slot
and its key was missing from the valet’s box. The car was never recovered. ☹
 CTI filed a claim against its insurer, FMIC, which the latter paid out.
 FMIC, having been subrogated to the rights of CTI, filed with the RTC an action for damages against TVFSI.
 TVFSI claimed the following defenses:
o the complaint failed to aver facts to support the allegations of recklessness and negligence committed in the
safekeeping and custody of the subject vehicle
o its employees wasted no time in ascertaining the loss of the car and in informing De Asis of the discovery of the loss
o in accepting the complimentary valet parking service, De Asis received a parking ticket whereunder it is so provided
that "[Management and staff will not be responsible for any loss of or damage incurred on the vehicle nor of valuables
contained therein", a provision which is an explicit waiver of any right to claim indemnity for the loss of the car
o its valet parking service did not include extending a contract of insurance or warranty for the loss of the vehicle
o FMIC has no right to be subrogated to CTI's right to file a claim for the loss of the car since theft is not a risk insured
against under FMICI's Insurance Policy
 RTC ruled in favor of FMIC.
 TVFSI appealed, arguing that it was not a depositary of the subject car and that it exercised due diligence and prudence in the
safe keeping of the vehicle, in handling the car-napping incident and in the supervision of its employees.
 CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC’s decision, holding that:
o TVFSI was a depositary of the subject vehicle
o TVFSI was negligent in its duties as a depositary thereof and as an employer of the valet attendant
o there was a valid subrogation of rights between CTI and respondent FMICI

ISSUE/S:

1. WON there was a contract of deposit between the parties (YES)

2. WON there was a valid subrogation of rights between CTI and FMCI (YES)

HOLDING:
 1. YES. When De Asis entrusted the car to petitioner’s valet attendant while eating at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant, the former
expected the car's safe return at the end of her meal. Thus, 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 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 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, drafted and prepared as it is by the petitioner alone with no 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 in themselves, the SC 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 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. Having entrusted the subject car to petitioner's valet attendant, De 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.

2. YES. Insurance Policy No. PC-5975 which respondent FMICI issued to CTI contains, among others things, the following item:
"Insured's Estimate of Value of Scheduled Vehicle- P800.000". On the basis of such item, the trial court concluded that the
coverage includes a full comprehensive insurance of the vehicle in case of damage or loss. Besides, CTI paid a premium of
P10,304 to cover theft. This is clearly shown in the breakdown of premiums in the same policy. Thus, having indemnified CTI for
the stolen car, FMIC, as correctly ruled by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, was properly subrogated to Crispa's rights
against petitioner, pursuant to Article 2207 of the New Civil Code.1

DISPOSITIVE: Petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE.

1
Art. 2207. If the plaintiff's property has been insured, and he has received indemnity from the insurance company for the injury or loss arising out of the wrong or
breach of contract complained of, the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated
the contract. If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency
from the person causing the loss or injury.