Lodging and security

Are the hotel and its employees liable for the loss of valuables kept in a safety deposit box provided to its customers? This is one of the issues raised and answered in this case of Mac.

Mac was an Australian Citizen who was a frequent visitor to the Philippines. In one of his trips, he met and befriended Malou, a comely Filipina who subsequently became his constant companion whenever he was here. Through the persuasion of Malou, Mac checked in another hotel, the Tropicana, on his next trip to the Philippines in October 1987. Upon registering, he rented a safety deposit box (SDB) where he placed his valuables consisting of US$15,000.00 and Australian $10,000.00, letters, credit cards, passport, bankbooks and checkbooks. They were placed in envelopes and arranged side by side inside the SDB. The SDB could only be opened with the use of two keys. One key was given to Mac while the master key was retained by the management.

When Mac decided to make a side trip to Hong Kong (HK) on December 12, 1987, he opened his SDB with the use of his key and the master key of the management and took from it the envelopes containing US$5,000.00 and Aus$10,000.00, his passport and credit cards. In HK, he discovered only US$3,000 in the envelope containing US$5,000. He dimissed this as just a result of bad accounting. But when he went home to Australia after returning to Manila, he discovered another US$5,000, some jewelries he bought in HK missing except for a diamond bracelet.

On April 4, 1998 Mac came back here, checked in again at Tropicana and placed in the SDB, US$15,000, AUS$10,000 and his travel documents in different envelopes. When he opened the SDB two weeks later, US$2,000 and AUS$4,500 were missing. He thus immediately confronted Lito the manager and Lita, the master key holder, about the missing items. The two admitted that Mac’s girlfriend Malou who was staying with him at the hotel opened the SDB in the early morning with the use of his key which was taken from him while asleep. Malou later on admitted that she indeed got the key and the missing items in the SDB with the help of Lita who used the master key held by the management. Malou even signed a Promissory Note undertaking to return what she stole. But Mac wanted the hotel to answer for the loss. The hotel however, through its manager, Lito denied any liability, relying on the conditions of the "Undertaking for the Use of the SDB" where Mac expressly releases and holds Tropicana free and harmless from any liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or the use of said deposit box for any cause whatsoever including but not limited to the presentation and use of the key by any other person. Was the hotel correct?

No. The "Undertaking" contravenes Article 2003 of the Civil Code. Under said article, 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 guests. Any stipulation between the hotel-keeper and the guest diminishing or suppressing the responsibility of the former for the effects deposited and the vehicles, animals and articles which have been introduced or placed in the annexes of the hotel, is void. The responsibility shall include the loss of, or injury to the personal property of the guests caused by the servants or employees of the hotel keepers as well as by strangers except as it may proceed from any force majeure (Arts. 1998 to 2000 Civil Code). The act of a thief or robber is not deemed force majeure unless it is done with the use of arms or through an irresistible force (Article 2001).

If it is not even necessary that the items be actually delivered to the innkeepers or their employees and it is enough that such effects are within the hotel or inn to render them liable (De Los Santos vs. Tan Khey, 58 O.G. 45-53, p. 7693) with greater reason should the liability of the hotel keepers be enforced when the missing items are taken without the guest’s consent and knowledge from the safety deposit box provided by the hotel itself, as in this case.

Article 2003 was incorporated in the New Civil Code as an expression of public policy precisely to apply to situations such as that presented in this case. The hotel business like the common carrier’s business is imbued with public interest. Catering to the public, hotel keepers are bound to provide not only lodging for hotel guests but also security to their persons and belonging. This twin duty is the essence of the hotel business and it should not be negated or diluted by any contrary stipulations contained in so called "undertakings" that ordinarily appear in prepared forms imposed by hotel keepers on guests for their signature (YHT Realty et. al. vs. Court of Appeals et. al. G.R. 126780, February 17, 2005 451 SCRA 638)

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]