Scribd
Upload
152 views1 page

Triple-V Food Services Inc. vs. Filipino Mechants Insurance COMPANY, GR NO. 160554, FEBRUARY 21, 2005

A customer parked her car at a restaurant's valet service and the car was later stolen. The restaurant claimed no liability as the parking receipt waived liability. The Supreme Court ruled the restaurant was liable as a depositary subject since accepting custody of the car established a contract of deposit, where the restaurant had an obligation to safely keep and return the deposited object. The Court did not allow the restaurant to use the liability waiver to avoid responsibility, as providing safe parking was part of attracting customers to its business.

Uploaded by

Raffy Lopez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
152 views1 page

Triple-V Food Services Inc. vs. Filipino Mechants Insurance COMPANY, GR NO. 160554, FEBRUARY 21, 2005

A customer parked her car at a restaurant's valet service and the car was later stolen. The restaurant claimed no liability as the parking receipt waived liability. The Supreme Court ruled the restaurant was liable as a depositary subject since accepting custody of the car established a contract of deposit, where the restaurant had an obligation to safely keep and return the deposited object. The Court did not allow the restaurant to use the liability waiver to avoid responsibility, as providing safe parking was part of attracting customers to its business.

Uploaded by

Raffy Lopez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Lopez, Raffy D.

2-A
Credit Transaction

TRIPLE-V FOOD SERVICES INC. VS. FILIPINO MECHANTS INSURANCE


COMPANY, GR NO. 160554, FEBRUARY 21, 2005

Facts:
Mary Jo-Anne De Asis dined at petitioner’s Kamayan Restaurant. De Asis was using a
Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon Model 1995 issued by her employer Crispa Textile Inc.,
On said date, De Asis availed of the valet parking service of petitioner and entrusted her
car key to petitioner’s valet counter. Afterwards, a certain Madridano, valet attendant,
noticed that the car was not in the parking slot and its key is no longer in the box where
valet attendants usually keep the keys of cars entrusted to them. The car was never
recovered. Thereafter, Crispa filed a claim against its insurer, herein respondent Filipino
Merchants Insurance Company Inc. Having indemnified Crispa for the loss of the subject
vehicle, FMICI, as subrogee to Crispa’s rights, filed with the RTC at Makati City an action
for damages against petitioner Triple –V Food Services Inc., Petitioner claimed that the
complaint failed to adduce facts to support the allegations of recklessness and negligence
committed in the safekeeping and custody of the subject vehicle. Besides, when De Asis
availed the free parking stab which contained a waiver of the petitioner’s liability in case
of loss, she hereby waived her rights.

Issue:
Whether petitioner Triple V Food Services Inc. is liable for the loss for the vehicle as a
depositary subject.

Held:
The SC ruled in the affirmative. 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.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

Hence, and as aptly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, 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 business
enticement for customers by providing them a safe parking space within the vicinity of its
restaurant. In a very real sense, a safe parking space is an added attraction to petitioner's
restaurant business because customers are thereby somehow assured that their vehicle
are safely kept, rather than parking them elsewhere at their own risk.

You might also like