Romeo De Los Santos vs Tan Khey

Facts:
 Tank Khey is the owner of the International Hotel located at Iloilo City.
 Romeo de los Santos went is a resident of Estancia, Iloilo who lodged in Tan Khey’s hotel where he used to stay
during his previous trips to the city
 Shortly after his arrival, he deposited his revolver and his big bag with Canuto, the person in charge.
 When he returned in the evening at the hotel, he took back his revolver and bag from Canuto and proceeded to
his room
 He woke up the following morning to find the door to his room opened and his pants and bag wherein he placed
his revolver, missing
 It was found that the room occupied by the plaintiff was only seven feet high with an open space above through
which one could enter from the outside
 The defendant disclaims liability because he contended that the plaintiff did not deposit his properties with the
manager despite a notice to the effect posted in the hotel.

Issue: W/N the innkeeper is liable for damages due to the things lost

Ruling: Yes, the innkeeper is liable for damages because by nature of their business, innkeepers have supervision and
control of their inns and the premises thereof. So even if it was not in the custody of the innkeeper as it was not
deposited to him, a room which is rented for a special purpose is still a part of the inn and goods brought there are infra
hospitium, although the person who brings them comes from the invitation of the lessee thereof. There was no need of a
formal notice or actual deposit to the manager of such things as it was previously deposited to him before. Hence, he
knows of such effects. Furthermore, the plaintiff had exercised on his part the necessary diligence with respect to the
care and vigilance of his effects as he locked the door of his room. An innkeeper cannot free himself from responsibility
by posting notices (Art. 2003 CC) because such is contrary to law.

YHT Realty Corporation vs. CA and Maurice Mcloughlin

YHT Realty vs CA

FACTS:

* Private respondent McLoughlin, an Australian businessman-philanthropist, used to stay at Sheraton Hotel during his
trips to the Philippines prior to 1984 when he met Tan.

* Tan convinced McLoughlin to transfer from Sheraton Hotel to Tropicana where Lainez, Payam and Danilo Lopez were
employed. Lopez served as manager of the hotel while Lainez and Payam had custody of the keys for the safety deposit
boxes of Tropicana.

* Tan took care of McLoughlin's booking at the Tropicana where he started staying during his trips to the Philippines from
December 1984 to September 1987.

* On 30 October 1987, McLoughlin arrived from Australia and registered with Tropicana. He rented a safety deposit box
as it was his practice to rent a safety deposit box every time he registered at Tropicana in previous trips.

* The safety deposit box could only be opened through the use of two keys, one of which is given to the registered guest,
and the other remaining in the possession of the management of the hotel.

* On 12 December 1987, before leaving for a brief trip to Hongkong, McLoughlin opened his safety deposit box

* When he arrived in Hongkong, he opened the envelope which contained Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000.00) and
discovered upon counting that only Three Thousand US Dollars (US$3,000.00) were enclosed therein.
* After returning to Manila, he checked out of Tropicana on 18 December 1987 and left for Australia. When he arrived in
Australia, he discovered that the envelope with Ten Thousand US Dollars (US$10,000.00) was short of Five Thousand US
Dollars (US$5,000). He also noticed that the jewelry which he bought in Hongkong and stored in the safety deposit box
upon his return to Tropicana was likewise missing, except for a diamond bracelet.

* Lainez told him that no one in the hotel found such things and none were turned over to the management. He again
registered at Tropicana and rented a safety deposit box.

* When McLoughlin discovered the loss, he immediately confronted Lainez and Payam who admitted that Tan opened
the safety deposit box with the key assigned to him.

* When the police did not arrive, Lopez and Tan went to the room of McLoughlin at Tropicana and thereat, Lopez wrote
on a piece of paper a promissory note dated 21 April 1988.

* For several times, McLoughlin left for Australia to attend to his business and came back to the Philippines to follow up
on his letter to the President but he failed to obtain any concrete assistance

ISSUE: W/N a hotel may evade liability for the loss of items left with it for safekeeping by its guests, by having these
guests execute written waivers holding the establishment or its employees free from blame for such loss in light of
Article 2003 of the Civil Code which voids such waivers.

Ruling: No, the hotel may not evade liability for loss of items left with it for safekeeping.

The court adheres to the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court that the fact of loss was established
by the credible testimony in open court by McLoughlin. Such bindings are factual and therefore beyond the ambit of the
present petition.

* The management should have guarded against the occurrence of this incident considering that Payam admitted in
open court that she assisted Tan three times in opening the safety deposit box of McLoughlin at around 6:30 A.M. to
7:30 A.M. while the latter was still asleep. In light of the circumstances surrounding this case, it is undeniable that
without the acquiescence of the employees of Tropicana to the opening of the safety deposit box, the loss of
McLoughlin's money could and should have been avoided.

* Under Article 1170 of the New Civil Code, those who, in the performance of their obligations, are guilty of negligence,
are liable for damages. As to who shall bear the burden of paying damages, Article 2180, paragraph (4) of the same Code
provides that the owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused
by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions.

* 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 and shall be void. It is the loss through
force majeure that may spare the hotel-keeper from liability. Thus, Tropicana was guilty of concurrent negligence in
allowing Tan, who was not the registered guest, to open the safety deposit box of McLoughlin, even assuming that the
latter was also guilty of negligence in allowing another person to use his key.

Durban Apartments Corporation vs. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation

Facts:

 On July 22,2003 Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation filed with the RTC of Makati City a complaint for
recovery of damages against Durban Apartments Corp. with business name City Garden Hotel and Vicente
Justimbaste for the Suzuki Grand Vitara that was lost
  Jeffrey See arrived and checked in at the City Garden Hotel in Makati before midnight and its parking attendant,
Justimbaste got the key from him to park it.
 At about 1am, See was awakened his room by a call from the Hotel Chief Security Officer who informed him that
his Vitara was carnapped
 The incident was reported to the Operations Division of the Makati Police Anti-carnapping unit and a flash alarm
was issued
 This was the second time that a similar incident of carnapping happened in the valet parking service of Durban
Apartments and no necessary precautions were taken to prevent its repetition
 Justimbaste issued a valet parking customer claim stub to See, parked the Vitara at the Equitable PCI Bank
parking area, and placed the ignition key inside a safety key box while See proceeded to the hotel lobby to check
in. The Equitable PCI Bank parking area became an annex of City Garden Hotel when the management of the said
bank allowed the parking of the vehicles of hotel guests thereat in the evening after banking hours.

Issue: W/N the petitioner is liable to respondent for the loss of See’s vehicle

Ruling: Yes, the petitioner is liable to respondent for the loss of See’s vehicle. According to Article 1962, in relation to
Article 1998, of the Civil Code defines a contract of deposit and a necessary deposit made by persons in hotels or inns:

Art. 1962. A deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a thing belonging to another, with the obligation
of safely keeping it and returning the same. If the safekeeping of the thing delivered is not the principal purpose of the
contract, there is no deposit but some other contract.

Art. 1998. The deposit of effects made by travelers in hotels or inns shall also be regarded as necessary. The keepers of
hotels or inns shall be responsible for them as depositaries, provided that notice was given to them, or to their
employees, of the effects brought by the... guests and that, on the part of the latter, they take the precautions which said
hotel-keepers or their substitutes advised relative to the care and vigilance of their effects.

Plainly, from the facts found by the lower courts, the insured See deposited his vehicle for safekeeping with petitioner,
through the latter's employee, Justimbaste. In turn, Justimbaste issued a claim stub to See. Thus, the contract of deposit
was perfected from See's delivery when he handed over to Justimbaste the keys to his vehicle, which Justimbaste
received with the obligation of safely keeping and returning it. Ultimately, petitioner is liable for the loss of See's vehicle.

Teofisto Guingona Jr. vs. City Fiscal of Manila

Facts: David invested several deposits with the Nation Savings and Loan Association [NSLA]. He said that he was induced into
making said investments by an Australian national who was a close associate of the petitioners [NSLA officials]. On March
1981, NSLA was placed under receivership by the Central Bank, so David filed claims for his and his sister’s
investments.

On June 1981, Guingona and Martin, upon David’s request, assumed the bank’s obligation to David by executing a joint
promissory note. On July 1981, David received a report that only a portion of his investments was entered in the NSLA records.

On December 1981, David filed I.S. No. 81-31938 in the Office of the City Fiscal, which case was assigned to Asst. City Fiscal
Lota for preliminary investigation. David charged petitioners with estafa and violation of Central Bank Circular No. 364 and
related regulations on foreign exchange transactions.

Petitioners moved to dismiss the charges against them for lack of jurisdiction because David's claims allegedly comprised a
purely civil obligation, but the motion was denied. After the presentation of David's principal witness, petitioners filed this petition
for prohibition and injunction because:
a. The production of various documents showed that the transactions between David and NSLA were simple loans (civil
obligations which were novated when Guingona and Martin assumed them)

b. David's principal witness testified that the duplicate originals of the instruments of indebtedness were all on file with NSLA.

A TRO was issued ordering the respondents to refrain from proceeding with the preliminary investigation in I.S. No. 81-31938.

Petitioners’ liability is civil in nature, so respondents have no jurisdiction over the estafa charge. TRO CORRECTLY ISSUED.

Issue:
1. Whether the contract between NSLA and David is a contract of depositor or a contract of loan, which answer determines
whether the City Fiscal has the jurisdiction to file a case for estafa

2. Whether there was a violation of Central Bank Circular No. 364

Held:
1. When David invested his money on time and savings deposits with NSLA, the contract that was perfected was a contract
of simple loan or mutuum and not a contract of deposit. Hence, the relationship between David and NSLA is that of
creditor and debtor, consequently, the ownership of the amount deposited was transmitted to the Bank upon the perfection of
the contract and it can make use of the amount deposited for its banking operations, such as to pay interests on deposits and to
pay withdrawals..

While the Bank has the obligation to return the amount deposited, it has no obligation to return or deliver the same money
that was deposited. NSLA’s failure to return the amount deposited will not constitute estafa through misappropriation
punishable under Article 315, par. L (b) of the Revised Penal Code, but it will only give rise to civil liability over which
the public respondents have no jurisdiction.

Considering that petitioners’ liability is purely civil in nature and that there is no clear showing that they engaged in foreign
exchange transactions, public respondents acted without jurisdiction when they investigated the charges against the petitioners.
Public respondents should be restrained from further proceeding with the criminal case for to allow the case to continue would
work great injustice to petitioners and would render meaningless the proper administration of justice.

Even granting that NSLA’s failure to pay the time and savings deposits would constitute a violation of RPC 315, paragraph 1(b),
any incipient criminal liability was deemed avoided. When NSLA was placed under receivership, Guingona and Martin
assumed the obligation to David, thereby resulting in the novation of the original contractual obligation. The original
trust relation between NSLA and David was converted into an ordinary debtor-creditor relation between the petitioners and
David. While it is true that novation does not extinguish criminal liability, it may prevent the rise of criminal liability as long as it
occurs prior to the filing of the criminal information in court.

2. Petitioner Guingona merely accommodated the request of the Nation Savings and loan Association in order to clear the bank
draft through his dollar account because the bank did not have a dollar account. Immediately after the bank draft was cleared,
petitioner Guingona authorized Nation Savings and Loan Association to withdraw the same in order to be utilized by the bank for
its operations. It is safe to assume that the U.S. dollars were converted first into Philippine pesos before they were accepted and
deposited in Nation Savings and Loan Association, because the bank is presumed to have followed the ordinary course of the
business which is to accept deposits in Philippine currency only, and that the transaction was regular and fair, in the absence of
a clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

In conclusion, considering that the liability of the petitioners is purely civil in nature and that there is no clear showing that they
engaged in foreign exchange transactions, We hold that the public respondents acted without jurisdiction when they investigated
the charges against the petitioners. Consequently, public respondents should be restrained from further proceeding with the
criminal case for to allow the case to continue, even if the petitioners could have appealed to the Ministry of Justice, would work
great injustice to petitioners and would render meaningless the proper administration of justice

Ruling: WHEREFORE, THE PETITION IS HEREBY GRANTED; THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PREVIOUSLY
ISSUED IS MADE PERMANENT.