G.R. No. 179419; January 12, 2011
DURBAN APARTMENTS CORPORATION, doing business under the name and style of City Garden Hotel, Petitioner, vs. PIONEER INSURANCE AND SURETY CORPORATION, Respondent.

FACTS

On April 30, 2002, Jeffrey See arrived at the City Garden Hotel in Makati. The hotel’s parking attendant, Vicente Justimbaste, took the key to See’s insured Suzuki Grand Vitara to park it. The vehicle was parked at the Equitable PCI Bank parking area, which the hotel used due to limited space. In the early hours of May 1, 2002, the hotel’s security officer informed See that his vehicle had been carnapped. See reported the incident to the police. The vehicle, insured by respondent Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation under a policy for ₱1,175,000.00, was not recovered. Pioneer Insurance paid See ₱1,163,250.00 for the loss and, by right of subrogation, filed a complaint for damages against petitioner Durban Apartments Corporation (the hotel operator) and its employee Justimbaste. The complaint alleged negligence, citing that a similar carnapping incident had occurred at the hotel’s valet parking service a month earlier and that the hotel failed to take necessary precautions. The hotel and Justimbaste, in their Answer, claimed See was a guest of another person, that See himself requested parking, that the parking was a special privilege excluding responsibility for loss, and that the carnapper did not use the key given to the attendant. During pre-trial, the counsel for the hotel and Justimbaste was absent, and no pre-trial brief was filed. The trial court allowed Pioneer Insurance to present evidence ex parte. The trial court held the hotel solely liable, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Durban Apartments Corporation (City Garden Hotel) is liable to respondent Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation for the loss of the vehicle due to negligence.

RULING

Yes, the petitioner is liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The relationship between the hotel and See was that of a hotelkeeper and guest, establishing an obligation to exercise extraordinary diligence in safeguarding the guest’s property. The hotel’s act of taking custody of the vehicle key through its attendant constituted depositum (a contract of deposit for the thing’s safekeeping), making the hotel a depositary obliged to observe the diligence of a good father of a family. The hotel failed to exercise the required diligence. The evidence showed that a similar carnapping incident had occurred in the same parking area just a month prior, yet the hotel did not enhance security measures. This prior incident made the risk foreseeable, and the hotel’s failure to act constituted negligence. The hotel’s defense that the parking was a gratuitous service and that it disclaimed liability through a claim stub was unavailing; such stipulations are void for being contrary to law and public policy as they would negate the hotel’s statutory duty of care. The hotel is solidarily liable with its employee for the negligent act done within the scope of employment, but since the employee was not appealed, the hotel’s sole liability was affirmed. The Court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees as justified under the circumstances.