YHT Realty V CA
YHT Realty V CA
YHT Realty v. The Court of Appeals GR No. 126780 February 17, 2005
RTC of Manila: YHT Realty management is ordered to pay McLoughlin ₱441,000, ₱3,674,238 as
actual and consequential damages arising from the loss of his Australian and American dollars
and jewelries, ₱500,000 as moral damages, ₱350,000 as exemplary damages, litigation
expenses in the sum of ₱200,000, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
The trial court ruled that paragraphs (2) and (4) of the "Undertaking for The Use of
Safety Deposit Box" are not valid for being contrary to the express mandate of Article 2003 of
the New Civil Code and against public policy.
Court of Appeals: Affirmed the decision of the RTC, with modifications as to costs.
Held: (1) One key is assigned to the guest while the other remains in the possession of the
management. If the guest desires to open his safety deposit box, he must request the
management for the other key to open the same. In other words, the guest alone cannot open
the safety deposit box without the assistance of the management or its employees. With more
reason that access to the safety deposit box should be denied if the one requesting for the
opening of the safety deposit box is a stranger. Thus, in case of loss of any item deposited in the
safety deposit box, it is inevitable to conclude that the management had at least a hand in the
consummation of the taking, unless the reason for the loss is force majeure.
(2) Mere close companionship and intimacy are not enough to warrant the conclusion
that Tan is the wife of McLoughlin, considering that what is involved in the instant case is the
very safety of McLoughlin's deposit. If only petitioners exercised due diligence in taking care of
McLoughlin's safety deposit box, they should have confronted him as to his relationship with
Tan considering that the latter had been observed opening McLoughlin's safety deposit box a
number of times at the early hours of the morning.
(3) The issue of whether the "Undertaking for The Use of Safety Deposit Box" executed
by McLoughlin is tainted with nullity, both the trial court and the appellate court found the
same to be null and void. We find no reason to reverse their common conclusion. Article 2003
is controlling.
Art. 2003. 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.