DEPOSIT TRIPLE-V FOOD SERVICES INC. vs. FILIPINO MERCHANTS INSURANCE COMPANY, GR. No. 160554, F !

"#$"% &1, &005 FACTS' Mary Jo-Anne De Asis dined at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant. De Asis was using a Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon Model 1995 issued by her employer rispa !e"tile #n$.. %n said date& De Asis a'ailed o( the 'alet par)ing ser'i$e o( petitioner and entrusted her $ar )ey to petitioner's 'alet $ounter. A(terwards& a $ertain Madridano& 'alet attendant& noti$ed that the $ar was not in its par)ing slot and its )ey no longer in the bo" where 'alet attendants usually )eep the )eys o( $ars entrusted to them. !he $ar was ne'er re$o'ered. !herea(ter& Mer$hants #nsuran$e as subrogee to rispa (iled a $laim against its insurer& herein respondent *ilipino rispa (or the loss o( the sub,e$t 'ehi$le& *M# #& ity an a$tion (or damages against petitioner at Ma)ati ompany& #n$. +a'ing indemni(ied

rispa's rights& (iled with the -!

!riple-. *ood Ser'i$es& #n$. /etitioner $laimed that the $omplaint (ailed to addu$e (a$ts to support the allegations o( re$)lessness and negligen$e $ommitted in the sa(e)eeping and $ustody o( the sub,e$t 'ehi$le. 0esides& when De Asis a'ailed the (ree par)ing stab whi$h $ontained a wai'er o( petitioner1s liability in $ase o( loss& she had thereby wai'ed her rights. ISSUE' 2hether or not petitioner !riple-. *ood Ser'i$es& #n$. is liable (or the loss. HELD' !he Supreme ourt ruled in the a((irmati'e. #n a $ontra$t o( deposit& a person re$ei'es an ob,e$t

belonging to another with the obligation o( sa(ely )eeping it and returning the same. A deposit may be $onstituted e'en without any $onsideration. #t is not ne$essary that the depositary re$ei'es a (ee be(ore it be$omes obligated to )eep the item entrusted (or sa(e)eeping and to return it later to the depositor. /etitioner $annot e'ade liability by arguing that neither a $ontra$t o( deposit nor that o( insuran$e& guaranty or surety (or the loss o( the $ar was $onstituted when De Asis a'ailed o( its (ree 'alet par)ing ser'i$e.

YHT REALTY CORPORATION VS. CA, GR. No. 1&6()0, F !"#$"% 1(, &005 FACTS' Mauri$e M$loughlin is an Australian philanthropist& businessman& and a tourist. #n his 'arious trips (rom Australia going to di((erent $ountries& one o( whi$h is the /hilippines& he would stay in !ropi$ana #nn whi$h is owned by 3+! -ealty orp. A(ter series o( transa$tions with the inn as depositary o( his belongings& he noti$ed that his money and se'eral ,ewelries would be either redu$ed or lost. +e then de$ided to (ile an a$tion against !ropi$ana and its inn-)eepers. +owe'er& the latter argued that they ha'e no liability with regard to the loss by 'irtue o( the underta)ing signed by M$loughlin. Su$h underta)ing is a wai'er o( the inn1s liability in $ase o( any loss. !he -! and A both de$ided that su$h underta)ing is null and 'oid as $ontrary to the e"press pro'isions o( the law. +en$e& the petition. ISSUE' 2hether or not the sub,e$t underta)ing is null and 'oid HELD' !he $ourt ruled in the a((irmati'e. Art. 4556 o( the i'il ode pro'ides that& the hotel-)eeper

$annot (ree himsel( (rom responsibility by posting noti$es to the e((e$t that he is not liable (or the arti$les brought by the guest. Any stipulation between the hotel-)eeper and the guest whereby the responsibility o( the (ormer as set (orth in Arti$les 1997 to 4551 is suppressed or diminished shall be 'oid.

CA AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. VS CA, &*1 SCRA 4&6 FACTS' /etitioner A Agro-#ndustrial De'elopment orp. and the spouses -amon and /aula /ugao ompany. erti(i$ates o( title o( par$els o( land were

rented a Sa(ety Deposit 0o" Se$urity 0an) and !rust

then stored therein. !herea(ter& a $ertain Mrs. Margarita -amos o((ered to buy two lots (rom petitioner. Mrs. -amos demanded the e"e$ution o( a deed o( sale whi$h ne$essarily entailed the produ$tion o( the $erti(i$ates o( title. #n 'iew thereo(& Aguirre& a$$ompanied by the /ugaos& then pro$eeded to the 0an) to open the sa(ety deposit bo" and get the $erti(i$ates o( title. +owe'er& when opened in the presen$e o( the 0an)'s representati'e& the bo" yielded no su$h $erti(i$ates. 0y 'irtue o( whi$h& petitioner (iled an a$tion against the ban) (or the loss. !he ban)& howe'er& $ontended that they are not liable (or the loss be$ause& aside (rom the wai'er signed by the petitioner& what transpired between them is a $ontra$t o( lease and not deposit. ISSUE' 2hether or not the $ontra$tual relation between a $ommer$ial ban) and another party in a $ontra$t o( rent o( a sa(ety deposit bo" with respe$t to its $ontents pla$ed by the latter one o( bailor and bailee or one o( lessor and lessee. HELD' !he $ontra$t (or the rent o( the sa(ety deposit bo" is not an ordinary $ontra$t o( lease as de(ined in Arti$le 1896 o( the i'il ode. +owe'er& the ourt do not (ully subs$ribe to its 'iew that the same is a i'il ode on deposit: the $ontra$t o( deposit that is to be stri$tly go'erned by the pro'isions in the

$ontra$t in the $ase at bar is a spe$ial )ind o( deposit. #t $annot be $hara$teri;ed as an ordinary $ontra$t o( lease under Arti$le 1896 be$ause the (ull and absolute possession and $ontrol o( the sa(ety deposit bo" was not gi'en to the ,oint renters < the petitioner and the /ugaos. !he guard )ey o( the bo" remained with the respondent 0an): without this )ey& neither o( the renters $ould open the bo". %n the other hand& the respondent 0an) $ould not li)ewise open the bo" without the renter's )ey. #n this $ase& the said )ey had a dupli$ate whi$h was made so that both renters $ould ha'e a$$ess to the bo".

+PI F$,-.% S$v-/0s +$/1, I/2. vs F-"s3 M 3"o I/v s3, /3 GR 14&4*0, M$% &1, &004 *a$ts= %n August 45& 1979& *M# & through its >"e$uti'e .i$e /resident Antonio %ng& opened $urrent a$$ount and deposited M>!-%0A?@ $he$) no. 7978A9 o( /155 million with 0/# *amily 0an) B0/# *0C. %ng made the deposit upon reDuest o( his (riend& Ador de Asis& a $lose a$Duaintan$e o( Jaime Sebastian& then 0ran$h Manager o( 0/# *0 San *ran$is$o del Monte 0ran$h. Sebastian1s aim was to in$rease the deposit le'el in his 0ran$h. 0/# *0& through Sebastian& guaranteed the payment o( /19&88A&87A.51 representing1AE per annum interest o( /155 million deposited by *M# . !he latter& in turn& assured 0/# *0 that it will maintain its deposit o( /155 million (or a period o( one year on $ondition that the interest o( 1AE per annum is paid in ad'an$e. !his agreement between the parties was rea$hed through their $ommuni$ations in writing. SubseDuently& 0/# *0 paid *M# 1AE interest or /19&88A&87A.51 upon $learan$e o( the latter1s $he$) deposit. +owe'er& on August 49& 1979& on the basis o( an Authority to Debit signed by %ng and Ma. !heresa Da'id& Senior Manager o( *M# & 0/# *0 trans(erred /75 million (rom *M# 1s $urrent a$$ount to the sa'ings a$$ount o( !e'este$o Arrastre F Ste'edoring&#n$. *M# denied ha'ing authori;ed the trans(er o( its (unds to !e'este$o& $laiming that the signatures o( %ng and Da'id were (alsi(ied. !hereupon& to re$o'er immediately its deposit& *M# & on September 14& 1979& issued 0/# *0 $he$) no. 1495AA (or/78&55A&898.A4 payable to itsel( and drawn on its deposit with 0/# *0 S*DM bran$h. 0ut upon presentation (or payment on September 16& 1979& 0/# *0 dishonored the$he$) as it was Gdrawn against insu((i$ient (unds. onseDuently& *M# (iled a $omplaint against 0/# *0. *M# (iled an #n(ormation (or esta(a against %ng& de Asis& Sebastian and (our others. +owe'er& the #n(ormation was dismissed on the basis o( a demurrer to e'iden$e (iled by the a$$used. #ssues= 1. 2as the transa$tion between *M# and 0/#& a time deposit or an interest-bearing $urrent a$$ount whi$h& under e"isting ban) regulations& was an illegal transa$tionH 4. #s the ban) liable (or the unauthori;ed trans(er o( respondent1s (unds to !e'este$oH De$isions= 1.2e hold that the parties did not intend the deposit to be treated as a demanddeposit but rather as an interest-earning time deposit not withdrawable anytime. 2hen respondent *M# in'ested its money with petitioner 0/# *0& they intended the /155 million as a time deposit& to earn 1AE per annum interest and to remain inta$tuntil itsmaturity date one year therea(ter. %rdinarily& a time deposit is de(ined as Gone the payment o( whi$h $annot legally be reDuired within su$h a spe$i(ied number o( days.#n $ontrast& demand deposits are Gall those liabilities o( the 0ang)o Sentral and o( other ban)s whi$h are denominated in/hilippine $urren$y and are sub,e$t to payment in legal tender upon demand by the presentation o( Bdepositor1sC $he$)s. 2hile it may be true that barely one month and se'en days (rom the date o( deposit& respondent *M# demanded the withdrawal o( /78&55A&898.A4 through the issuan$e o( a $he$) payable to itsel(& the same was made as a result o( the (raudulent and unauthori;ed trans(er by petitioner 0/# *0 o( its /75 million

deposit to !e'este$o1s sa'ings a$$ount. ertainly& su$h was a normal rea$tion o( respondent as a depositor to petitioner1s (ailure in its (idu$iary duty to treat its a$$ount with the highest degree o( $are. Inder this $ir$umstan$e& the withdrawal o( deposit by respondent *M# be(ore the one-year maturity date did not $hange the nature o( its time deposit to one o( demand deposit. 2e ha'e held that i( a $orporation )nowingly permits its o((i$er& or any other agent& to per(orm a$ts within the s$ope o( an apparent authority& holding him out to the publi$ as possessing power to do those a$ts& the $orporation will& as against any person who has dealt in good (aith with the $orporation through su$h agent& be estopped (rom denying su$h authority. /etitioner maintains that respondent should ha'e (irst inDuired whether the deposit o( /155 Million and the (i"ing o( the interest rate were pursuant to its Bpetitioner1sC internal pro$edures. /etitioner1s stan$e is a (utile attempt to e'ade an obligation $learly established by the intent o( the parties. 2hat transpires in the $orporate boardroom is entirely an internal matter. +en$e& petitioner may not impute negligen$e on the part o( respondent1s representati'e in (ailing to (ind out the s$ope o( authority o( petitioner1s 0ran$h Manager. #ndeed& the publi$ has the right to rely on the trustworthiness o( ban) managers and their a$ts. %b'iously& $on(iden$e in the ban)ing system& whi$h ne$essarily in$ludes relian$e on ban) managers& is 'ital in the e$onomi$ li(e o( our so$iety. Signi(i$antly& the transa$tion was a$tually a$)nowledged and rati(ied by petitioner when it paid respondent in ad'an$e the interest (or one year. !hus& petitioner is estopped (rom denying that it authori;ed its 0ran$h Manager to enter into anagreement with respondent1s >"e$uti'e .i$e /resident $on$erning the deposit withthe $orresponding 1AE interest per annum. 4.3es. 2e uphold the (inding o( both lower $ourts that petitioner (ailed to e"er$ise that degree o( diligen$e reDuired by the nature o( its obligations to its depositors. A ban) is under obligation to treat the a$$ounts o( its depositors with meti$ulous $are& whether su$h a$$ount $onsists only o( a (ew hundred pesos or o( million o( pesos. +ere& petitioner $annot $laim it e"er$ised su$h adegree o( $are reDuired o( it and must& there(ore& bear the $onseDuen$e.