Triple-V v. Filipino Merchants

Facts: 
On March 2, 1997, at around 2:15 o'clock in the afternoon, a certain Mary Jo-Anne De Asis (De Asis) dined at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant at 15 West Avenue, Quezon City. De Asis was using a Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon Model 1995, assigned to her by her employer Crispa Textile Inc. (Crispa). On said date, 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). 

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. The court ruled in favor of FMICI.

Petitioner appealed to the CA but affirmed the RTC decision.

Issue: 

Whether or not Triple V is liable to the loss of the car

Held:

When De Asis entrusted the car in question to petitioners 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.

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.