FACTS
·
Maurice Peaches McLoughlin is an Australian businessman-philanthropist who used
to stay at the Sheraton Hotel during his trips to the Philippines prior to
1984. He met Brunhilda Mata-Tan who befriended him and showed him around. Tan
convinced Mcloughlin to transfer to the Tropicana from the Sheraton where
afterwards he stayed during his trips from Dec 1984 to Sept 1987.
·
On 30 Oct 1987, McLoughlin arrived from Australia and registered with
Tropicana. He rented a safety deposit box as his usual practice. The box
required two keys, the guest had one and one from the management. He placed US $10,000 in one envelope and
US$5,000 in another , AU$10,000 in another envelope and other envelopes with
his passport and credit cards. On 12 Dec 1987, he took from the box the
envelope with US$5,000 and the one with AU$10,000 to go to Hong Kong for a short visit, because he was not checking out.
When he arrived in HK, the envelope with US$5,000 only contained US$3,000, but
because he had no idea if the safety deposit box has been tampered, he thought
it was just bad accounting.
·
After returning to Manila, he checked out of the Tropicana on 18 Dec
1987 and left for Australia. When he arrived he discovered that the envelope
with US$10,000 was short of US$5,000. He also noticed that the jewelry he
bought in Hong Kong which he stored in the safety deposit box upon his return
to Tropicana was likewise missing, except for a diamond bracelet.
·
He went back to the PH on 4 Apr 1988 and asked Lainez (who had custody
of the management key) if some money was missing or returned to her, to which
the latter answered there was not. He again registered at the Tropicana and
rented a safety deposit box. He placed an envelope containing US$15,000,
another of AU$10,000. On 16 Apr, he opened his safety deposit box and noticed
that US$2,000 and AU$4,500 was missing from the envelopes.
·
He immediately confronted Lainez and Payam who admitted that Tan opened the safety deposit box with the
key assigned to McLoughlin.
McLoughlin went up to
his room where Tan was staying and confronted her. Tan admitted that she
had stolen McLoughlin’s key and was able to open the safety deposit box with the
assistance of Lopez, Payam and Lainez. Lopez also
told McLoughlin that Tan stole the key assigned to McLoughlin while the latter
was asleep.
·
McLoughlin requested the management for an investigation of the
incident. Lopez got in touch with Tan and arranged for a meeting with the
police and McLoughlin. 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.
·
He made Lopez and Tan sign a promissory note for him for the loss.
However, Lopez refused liability on behalf of the hotel, reasoning that
McLoughlin signed an "Undertaking for the Use of Safety Deposit Box"
which disclaims any liability of the hotel for things put inside the box.
·
On 17 May 1988 McLoughlin went back to AU and consulted his lawyers.
They wrote a letter addressed to Pres. Cory Aquino which was pushed back to the
DOJ and the Western Police District. He went back from the PH to AU several
times more to attend business and follow up but the matter was only filed on 3 Dec 1990 since he was not there to personally
follow up.
·
McLoughlin filed an action against YHT Realty Corporation, Lopez,
Lainez, Payam and Tan.
·
The RTC rendered judgment in favor of McLoughlin. The CA modified only
the amount of damages awarded.
·
Tan and Lopez, however, were not served with summons, and trial
proceeded with only Lainez, Payam and YHT Realty Corporation as defendants.
(a) whether the loss of money and jewelry is supported by the evidence.
YES.
Where the
credibility of a witness is an issue, the established rule is that great
respect is accorded to the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses by the
trial court. The trial court is in the best position to
assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique
opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct
and attitude under grilling examination.
(b) whether there was gross negligence on the part of the innkeepers
Payam and
Lainez, who were employees of Tropicana, had custody of the master key of the
management when the loss took place. They even admitted that they
assisted Tan on three separate occasions in opening McLoughlin’s safety deposit
box.
The
management contends that McLoughlin made
its employees believe that Tan was his spouse for she was always with him most
of the time. The evidence on record is bereft of any showing that
McLoughlin introduced Tan to the management as his wife. Mere close
companionship and intimacy are not enough to warrant such conclusion. 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.
Art 2180, par
(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. Given the fact that the loss of
McLoughlin’s money was consummated through the negligence of Tropicana’s
employees both the employees and YHT, as owner of Tropicana, should be held
solidarily liable pursuant to Art 2193.
WON the "Undertaking for the Use of the Safety
Deposit Box" is null and void.
Yes, it is
null and void. Art. 2003[1] is
controlling. This is an expression of public policy that the hotel business
like common carriers are imbued with public interest. This responsibility
cannot be waived away by any contrary stipulation in so-called
"undertakings" that ordinarily appear in prepared forms imposed by
hotel keepers on guests for their signature.
The CA (former
case) even ruled before that hotelkeepers are liable even though the effects
are not delivered to them or their employees, but it is enough that the effects
are within the hotel or inn.
Pars. 2 and 4
of the undertaking manifestly contravene Art. 2003 of the NCC. Meanwhile, the
defense that Art. 2002 exempts the hotel-keeper from liability if the loss is
due to the acts of the guest, family or visitors falls because the hotel is guilty
of negligence as well. This provision presupposes that the hotel-keeper is not
guilty of concurrent negligence or has not contributed in any degree to the
occurrence of the loss.
dispositive
·
Damages awarded by the lower court sustained
·
US$2,000.00 and AUS$4,500.00 or their peso equivalent at the
time of payment;
·
Air fares for a total of 11 trips + transpo expense
·
Hotel payments
·
Moral 50K
·
ED 10K
·
AF 200K
[1] Art.
2003. The hotel-keeper cannot free himself from responsibility by posting
notices to the effect that he is not liable for the Arts brought by the guest.
Any stipulation between the hotel-keeper and the guest whereby the
responsibility of the former as set forth in Arts 1998 to 2001[37] is suppressed or
diminished shall be void.
0 comments:
Post a Comment