TRIPLE-V vs. FILIPINO MERCHANTS G.R. No. 160544.

February 21, 2005

Facts:
 March 2, 1997 - at around 2:15 pm, a certain Mary Jo-Anne De Asis dined at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant at
Quezon City. De Asis was using a Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon Model 1995 with plate number UBU 955,
assigned to her by her employer Crispa Textile Inc.
 De Asis availed of the valet parking service of petitioner and entrusted her car key to petitioner's valet counter. A
corresponding parking ticket was issued as receipt for the car. The car was then parked by petitioner's valet
attendant, a certain Madridano, at the designated parking area.
 Few minutes later, Madridano noticed that the car was not in its parking slot and its key 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.
(FMICI).
 Having indemnified Crispa in the amount of P669.500 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’s argument:
 Argued that the complaint failed to aver facts to support the allegations of recklessness and negligence committed
in the safekeeping and custody of the subject vehicle
 Claiming that it and its employees wasted no time in ascertaining the loss of the car and in informing De Asis of the
discovery of the loss.
 That in accepting the complimentary valet parking service, De Asis received a parking ticket whereunder it is so
provided that "[Management and staff will not be responsible for any loss of or damage incurred on the vehicle nor
of valuables contained therein", a provision which, to petitioner's mind, is an explicit waiver of any right to claim
indemnity for the loss of the car;
 and that De Asis knowingly assumed the risk of loss when she allowed petitioner to park her vehicle, adding that
its valet parking service did not include extending a contract of insurance or warranty for the loss of the vehicle.
 During trial, petitioner challenged FMICI's subrogation to Crispa's right to file a claim for the loss of the car, arguing
that theft is not a risk insured against under FMICI's Insurance Policy No. PC-5975 for the subject vehicle.

 Trial court decision: rendered judgment for respondent FMICI

 Petitioner appealed to the CA reiterating its argument that it was not a depositary of the subject car and that it
exercised due diligence and prudence in the safe keeping of the vehicle, in handling the car-napping incident and
in the supervision of its employees.
 The CA dismissed appeal and affirmed the appealed decision of the trial court, thus:
o the appellate court agreed with the findings and conclusions of the trial court that:
 (a) petitioner was a depositary of the subject vehicle;
 (b) petitioner was negligent in its duties as a depositary thereof and as an employer of the valet
attendant; and
 Hence, petitioner's present recourse.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner was a depositary of the subject vehicle?

Ruling: Yes.
 When De Asis entrusted the car in question to petitioner’s valet attendant while eating at petitioner's Kamayan
Restaurant, the former expected the car's safe return at the end of her meal.
 Thus, petitioner was constituted as a depositary of the same car.
 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.

Contract of Deposit
 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. It is not necessary that the depositary receives a fee
before it becomes obligated to keep the item entrusted for safekeeping and to return it later to the depositor.
 Specious is petitioner's insistence that the valet parking claim stub it issued to De Asis contains a clear exclusion
of its liability and operates as an explicit waiver by the customer of any right to claim indemnity for any loss of or
damage to the vehicle.
 The parking claim stub embodying the terms and conditions of the parking, including that of relieving petitioner from
any loss or damage to the car, is essentially a contract of adhesion, drafted and prepared as it is by the petitioner
alone with no participation whatsoever on the part of the customers, like De Asis, who merely adheres to the printed
stipulations therein appearing.
 While contracts of adhesion are not void in themselves, yet this Court will not hesitate to rule out blind adherence
thereto if they prove to be one-sided under the attendant facts and circumstances.

 Hence, and as aptly pointed out by the CA, 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 latter's 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.
 Having entrusted the subject car to petitioner's valet attendant, customer De Asis, like all of petitioner's customers,
fully expects the security of her car while at petitioner's premises/designated parking areas and its safe return at
the end of her visit at petitioner's restaurant.
 WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE. SO ORDERED.