G.R. No. 179382; January 14, 2013
SPOUSES BENJAMIN C. MAMARIL AND SONIA P. MAMARIL, Petitioners, vs. THE BOY SCOUT OF THE PHILIPPINES, AIB SECURITY AGENCY, INC., CESARIO PEÑA, AND VICENTE GADDI, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Spouses Mamaril, jeepney operators, regularly parked their vehicles for a fee within the compound of respondent Boy Scout of the Philippines (BSP). BSP had contracted respondent AIB Security Agency to provide security for its premises. On the night of May 26, 1995, one of the Mamarils’ jeepneys was parked inside the BSP compound. The following morning, it was discovered missing. Respondents security guards Peña and Gaddi, employees of AIB, stated that an unidentified but familiar-looking male drove the vehicle out. The spouses filed a complaint for damages against BSP, AIB, and the guards, alleging gross negligence for allowing an unauthorized person to take the vehicle despite an agreement that only endorsed drivers could do so.
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the spouses, holding all respondents jointly and severally liable. It found the guards grossly negligent and held BSP liable, interpreting the guard service contract as extending protection to all properties within the compound, including the petitioners’ vehicles. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of negligence against the guards and AIB but absolved BSP from liability. The CA ruled that the guard service contract was purely between BSP and AIB, creating no obligation in favor of third parties like the petitioners, and that BSP, as a mere lessor of parking space, was not an insurer of the vehicles parked therein.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in absolving respondent Boy Scout of the Philippines from any liability for the loss of the petitioners’ vehicle.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that BSP cannot be held liable for the loss. The legal relationship between BSP and the spouses was a contract of lease of parking space, not a contract of deposit. As a lessor, BSP’s obligation was merely to deliver the lawful use and enjoyment of the parking space. It was not bound to exercise the diligence required of a depositary or an insurer over the vehicles parked. The negligence that caused the loss was solely attributable to the security guards, who were employees of the independent contractor, AIB Security Agency.
The guard service contract between BSP and AIB did not create any stipulation pour autrui in favor of the petitioners. Its terms covered only the protection of BSP’s properties and personnel. BSP’s selection of AIB was not shown to be negligent. Furthermore, the parking ticket contained a valid disclaimer of liability for loss, of which the spouses were aware from their years of availing the parking service. Consequently, liability rests solely with the security guards and their employer, AIB, under the principle of respondeat superior, as the guards’ negligent acts were committed within the scope of their assigned tasks. BSP, having engaged the services of a reputable security agency, was not proven to have been negligent itself.