Article 1189

        

      Kung ang kondisyon o kasunduan ay naipatupad na at ang layunin nito ay ipagpaliban ang mga pananagutan ng pagbibigay ng mga ito , ang mga sumusunod ay dapat ipatupad kung may mga pagbabago, pagkawala, o pagkasira sa mga panahong suspensido ang kondisyon.

1. Kung ang bagay ay mawala na walang kasalanan ang may utang ang pananagutan ay mawawala din.
2. Kung ang pagkawala ng bagay ay kasalanan ng may utang, mananagot siya magbayad ng danyos at ipagpapalagay ang gayon bagay ay hindi na muling mababawi pa.
3. Kung ang bagay ay kumupas o sumama na, ang may utang ay walang kasalanan, ang pagpapagawa o pagbabalik ng dating kaanyoan ay sa sagutin ng nagpapautang.
4. Kung ang pagkupas o pagbaba ng halaga ay kagagawan o kasalanan ng may pagkakautang ang nagpapautang ay magpapasiya upang pawalan saysay/kansilahin ang obligasyon at pagsasakatuparan noon na may kabayaran sa danyos alin man sa dalawa ang pipiliin nya.
5. Kung ang bagay ay umunlad ng natural o ng panahon, ang kaunlaran ay sa pakinabang ng nagpapautang.
6. Kung ang pagunlad ay kagagawan ng may utang wala siyang karapatan maliban sa karapatan ipinagkaloob ng usufructuary o pag bibigay ng karapatan upang magamit ito. 

 YHT REALTY CORPORATION, ERLINDA LAINEZ and ANICIA PAYAM, petitioners,

       

 VS.

     

THE COURT OF APPEALS and MAURICE McLOUGHLIN, respondents.G.R. No. 126780

February 17, 20052

Division J. Tinga

FACTS:

Respondent McLoughlin would always stay at Tropicana Hotel every time he is here in thePhilippines and would rent a safety deposit box. The safety deposit box could only be openedthrough the use of 2 keys, one of which is given to the registered guest, and the other remaining inthe possession of the management of the hotel.McLoughlin allegedly placed the following in his safety deposit box – 2 envelopes containingUS Dollars, one envelope containing Australian Dollars, Letters, credit cards, bankbooks and acheckbook.On 12 December 1987, before leaving for a brief trip, McLoughlin took some items from thesafety box which includes the ff: envelope containing Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000.00), theother envelope containing Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00), his passports and hiscredit cards. The other items were left in the deposit box. Upon arrival, he found out that a fewdollars were missing and the jewelry he bought was likewise missing.Eventually, he confronted Lainez and Paiyam who admitted that Tan opened the safetydeposit box with the key assigned to him. McLoughlin went up to his room where Tan was stayingand confronted her. Tan admitted that she had stolen McLouglin’s key and was able to open thesafety deposit box with the assistance of Lopez, Paiyam and Lainez. Lopez also told McLoughlinthat Tan stole the key assigned to McLouglin while the latter was asleep.McLoughlin insisted that it must be the hotel who must assume responsibility for the loss hesuffered. Lopez refused to accept responsibility relying on the conditions for renting the safetydeposit box entitled “Undertaking For the Use of Safety Deposit Box”

ISSUE:

WON the "Undertaking for the Use of Safety Deposit Box" admittedly executed by privaterespondent is null and void.

HELD:

YESArticle 2003 was incorporated in the New Civil Code as an expression of public policyprecisely to apply to situations such as that presented in this case. The hotel business like thecommon carrier’s business is imbued with public interest. Catering to the public, hotelkeepers arebound to provide not only lodging for hotel guests and security to their persons and belongings. The twin duty constitutes the essence of the business. The law in turn does not allow such duty tothe public to be negated or diluted by any contrary stipulation in so-called “undertakings” thatordinarily appear in prepared forms imposed by hotel keepers on guests for their signature.In an early case (De Los Santos v. Tan Khey), CA ruled that to hold hotelkeepers orinnkeeper liable for the effects of their guests, it is not necessary that they be actually delivered tothe innkeepers or their employees. It is enough that such effects are within the hotel or inn. Withgreater reason should the liability of the hotelkeeper be enforced when the missing items aretaken without the guest’s knowledge and consent from a safety deposit box provided by the hotelitself, as in this case.Paragraphs (2) and (4) of the “undertaking” manifestly contravene Article 2003, CC for theyallow Tropicana to be released from liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or use of thesafety deposit box for any cause whatsoever. Evidently, the undertaking was intended to bar anyclaim against Tropicana for any loss of the contents of the safety deposit box whether or notnegligence was incurred by Tropicana or its employees. The New Civil Code is explicit that theresponsibility of the hotel-keeper shall extend to loss of, or injury to, the personal property of theguests even if caused by servants or employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well as bystrangers, except as it may proceed from any force majeure.

.

.