G.R. No. 69162 February 21, 1992

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, petitioner, vs.THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and the SPOUSES ARTHUR CANLAS and VIVIENE CANLAS,respondents.

Leonen, Ramirez & Associates for petitioner.

L. Emmanuel B. Canilao for private respondents.

 

GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:

In a decision dated September 3, 1984, the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) in AC-G.R. CV No. 69178 entitled, "Arthur A. Canlas, et al., Plaintiff-Appellees vs. Commercial Bank and Trust Company of the Philippines, Defendant-Appellant," reduced to P105,000 the P465,000 damage-award of the trial court to the private respondents for an error of a bank teller which resulted in the dishonor of two small checks which the private respondents had issued against their joint current account. This petition for review of that decision was filed by the Bank.

Facts:

The respondent spouses, Arthur and Vivienne Canlas, opened a joint current account No. 210-520-73 on April 25, 1977 in the Quezon City branch of the Commercial Bank and Trust Company of the Philippines (CBTC) with an initial deposit of P2,250. Prior thereto, Arthur Canlas had an existing separate personal checking account No. 210-442-41 in the same branch.

When the respondent spouses opened their joint current account, the "new accounts" teller of the bank pulled out from the bank's files the old and existing signature card of respondent Arthur Canlas for Current Account No. 210-442-41 for use as I D and reference. By mistake, she placed the old personal account number of Arthur Canlas on the deposit slip for the new joint checking account of the spouses so that the initial deposit of P2,250 for the joint checking account was miscredited to Arthur's personal account (p. 9, Rollo). The spouses subsequently deposited other amounts in their joint account.

However, when respondent Vivienne Canlas issued a check for Pl,639.89 in April 1977 and another check for P1,160.00 on June 1, 1977, one of the checks was dishonored by the bank for insufficient funds and a penalty of P20 was deducted from the account in both instances. In view of the overdrawings, the bank tried to call up the spouses at the telephone number which they had given in their application form, but the bank could not contact them because they actually reside in Porac, Pampanga. The city address and telephone number which they gave to the bank belonged to Mrs. Canlas' parents.

On December 15, 1977, the private respondents filed a complaint for damages against CBTC in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga (p. 113, Rollo).

On February 27, 1978, the bank filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for improper venue. The motion was denied.

During the pendency of the case, the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) and CBTC were merged. As the surviving corporation under the merger agreement and under Section 80 (5) of the Corporation Code of the Philippines, BPI took over the prosecution and defense of any pending claims, actions or proceedings by and against CBTC.

On May 5, 1981, the Regional Trial Court of Pampanga rendered a decision against BPI, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing defendant to pay the plaintiff the following:

1. P 5,000.00 as actual damages;

2. P 150,000.00 for plaintiff Arthur Canlas and P150,000.00 for plaintiff Vivienne S. Canlas representing moral damages;

3. P 150.000.00 as exemplary damages;

4. P 10,000.00 as attorney's fees; and

5. Costs. (p. 36, Rollo).

On appeal, the Intermediate Appellate Court deleted the actual damages and reduced the other awards. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified as follows:

1. The award of P50,000.00 in actual damages is herewith deleted.

2. Moral damages of P50,000.00 is awarded to plaintiffs-appellees Arthur Canlas and Vivienne S. Canlas, not P50,000.00 each.

3. Exemplary damages is likewise reduced to the sum of P50,000.00 and attorney's fees to P5,000.00.

Costs against the defendants appellant. (p. 40, Rollo.)

Petitioner filed this petition for review alleging that the appellate court erred in holding that:

1. The venue of the case had been properly laid at Pampanga in the light of private respondents' earlier declaration that Quezon City is their true residence.

2. The petitioner was guilty of gross negligence in the handling of private respondents' bank account.

3. Private respondents are entitled to the moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees adjudged by the respondent appellate court.

On the question of venue raised by petitioner, it is evident that personal actions may be instituted in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of the province where the defendant or any of the defendants resides or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of the plaintiffs resides, at the election of the plaintiff (Section 2[b], Rule 4 of the Rules of Court). In this case, there was ample proof that the residence of the plaintiffs is B. Sacan, Porac, Pampanga (p. 117, Rollo). The city address of Mrs. Canlas' parents was placed by the private respondents in their application for a joint checking account, at the suggestion of the new accounts teller, presumably to facilitate mailing of the bank statements and communicating with the private respondents in case any problems should arise involving the account. No waiver of their provincial residence for purposes of determining the venue of an action against the bank may be inferred from the so-called "misrepresentation" of their true residence.

The appellate court based its award of moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees on its finding that the mistake committed by the new accounts teller of the petitioner constituted "serious" negligence (p. 38, Rollo). Said court further stressed that it cannot absolve the petitioner from liability for damages to the private respondents, even on the assumption of an honest mistake on its part, because of the embarrassment that even an honest mistake can cause its depositors (p. 31, Rollo).

There is no merit in petitioner's argument that it should not be considered negligent, much less held liable for damages on account of the inadvertence of its bank employee for Article 1173 of the Civil Code only requires it to exercise the diligence of a good father of family.

In Simex International (Manila), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals (183 SCRA 360, 367), this Court stressed the fiduciary nature of the relationship between a bank and its depositors and the extent of diligence expected of it in handling the accounts entrusted to its care.

In every case, the depositor expects the bank to treat his account with the utmost fidelity, whether such account consists only of a few hundred pesos or of millions. The bank must record every single transaction accurately, down to the last centavo, and as promptly as possible. This has to be done if the account is to reflect at any given time the amount of money the depositor can dispose of as he sees fit, confident that the bank will deliver it as and to whomever he directs. A blunder on the part of the bank, such as the dishonor of a check without good reason, can cause the depositor not a little embarrassment if not also financial loss and perhaps even civil and criminal litigation.

The point is that as a business affected with public interest and because of the nature of its functions, the bank is under obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. . . .

The bank is not expected to be infallible but, as correctly observed by respondent Appellate Court, in this instance, it must bear the blame for not discovering the mistake of its teller despite the established procedure requiring the papers and bank books to pass through a battery of bank personnel whose duty it is to check and countercheck them for possible errors. Apparently, the officials and employees tasked to do that did not perform their duties

with due care, as may be gathered from the testimony of the bank's lone witness, Antonio Enciso, who casually declared that "the approving officer does not have to see the account numbers and all those things.   Those are very petty things for the approving manager to look into" (p. 78, Record on Appeal). Unfortunately, it was a "petty thing," like the incorrect account number that the bank teller wrote on the initial deposit slip for the newly-opened joint current account of the Canlas spouses, that sparked this half-a-million-peso damage suit against the bank.

While the bank's negligence may not have been attended with malice and bad faith, nevertheless, it caused serious anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation to the private respondents for which they are entitled to recover reasonable moral damages (American Express International, Inc. vs. IAC, 167 SCRA 209). The award of reasonable attorney's fees is proper for the private respondents were compelled to litigate to protect their interest (Art. 2208, Civil Code). However, the absence of malice and bad faith renders the award of exemplary damages improper (Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 176 SCRA 778).

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is granted. The appealed decision is MODIFIED by deleting the award of exemplary damages to the private respondents. In all other respects, the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, now Court of Appeals, is AFFIRMED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. L-6913            November 21, 1913

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO, plaintiff-appellee, vs.GREGORIO DE LA PEÑA, administrator of the estate of Father Agustin de la Peña, defendant-appellant.

J. Lopez Vito, for appellant.Arroyo and Horrilleno, for appellee.

 

MORELAND, J.:

This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, awarding to the plaintiff the sum of P6,641, with interest at the legal rate from the beginning of the action.

It is established in this case that the plaintiff (Roman Catholic Bishop Of Jaro) is the trustee of a charitable bequest made for the construction of a leper hospital and that father Agustin de la Peña was the duly authorized representative of the plaintiff to receive the legacy. The defendant is the administrator of the estate of Father De la Peña.

In the year 1898 the books Father De la Peña, as trustee, showed that he had on hand as such trustee the sum of P6,641, collected by him for the charitable purposes aforesaid. In the same year he deposited in his personal account P19,000 in the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank at Iloilo. Shortly thereafter and during the war of the revolution, Father De la Peña was

arrested by the military authorities as a political prisoner, and while thus detained made an order on said bank in favor of the United States Army officer under whose charge he then was for the sum thus deposited in said bank. The arrest of Father De la Peña and the confiscation of the funds in the bank were the result of the claim of the military authorities that he was an insurgent and that the funds thus deposited had been collected by him for revolutionary purposes. The money was taken from the bank by the military authorities by virtue of such order, was confiscated and turned over to the Government.

While there is considerable dispute in the case over the question whether the P6,641 of trust funds was included in the P19,000 deposited as aforesaid, nevertheless, a careful examination of the case leads us to the conclusion that said trust funds were a part of the funds deposited and which were removed and confiscated by the military authorities of the United States.

That branch of the law known in England and America as the law of trusts had no exact counterpart in the Roman law and has none under the Spanish law. In this jurisdiction, therefore, Father De la Peña's liability is determined by those portions of the Civil Code which relate to obligations. (Book 4, Title 1.)

Although the Civil Code states that "a person obliged to give something is also bound to preserve it with the diligence pertaining to a good father of a family" (art. 1094), it also provides, following the principle of the Roman law, major casus est, cui humana infirmitas resistere non potest, that "no one shall be liable for events which could not be foreseen, or which having been foreseen were inevitable, with the exception of the cases expressly mentioned in the law or those in which the obligation so declares." (Art. 1105.)

By placing the money in the bank and mixing it with his personal funds De la Peña did not thereby assume an obligation different from that under which he would have lain if such deposit had not been made, nor did he thereby make himself liable to repay the money at all hazards. If the had been forcibly taken from his pocket or from his house by the military forces of one of the combatants during a state of war, it is clear that under the provisions of the Civil Code he would have been exempt from responsibility. The fact that he placed the trust fund in the bank in his personal account does not add to his responsibility. Such deposit did not make him a debtor who must respond at all hazards.

We do not enter into a discussion for the purpose of determining whether he acted more or less negligently by depositing the money in the bank than he would if he had left it in his home; or whether he was more or less negligent by depositing the money in his personal account than he would have been if he had deposited it in a separate account as trustee. We regard such discussion as substantially fruitless, inasmuch as the precise question is not one of negligence. There was no law prohibiting him from depositing it as he did and there was no law which changed his responsibility be reason of the deposit. While it may be true that one who is under obligation to do or give a thing is in duty bound, when he sees events approaching the results of which will be dangerous to his trust, to take all reasonable means and measures to escape or, if unavoidable, to temper the effects of those events, we do not feel constrained to hold that, in choosing between two means equally legal, he is culpably negligent in selecting one whereas he would not have been if he had selected the other.

The court, therefore, finds and declares that the money which is the subject matter of this action was deposited by Father De la Peña in the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation of Iloilo; that said money was forcibly taken from the bank by the armed forces of

the United States during the war of the insurrection; and that said Father De la Peña was not responsible for its loss.

The judgment is therefore reversed, and it is decreed that the plaintiff shall take nothing by his complaint.

Arellano, C.J., Torres and Carson, JJ., concur.

 

 

Separate Opinions

TRENT, J., dissenting:

I dissent. Technically speaking, whether Father De la Peña was a trustee or an agent of the plaintiff his books showed that in 1898 he had in his possession as trustee or agent the sum of P6,641 belonging to the plaintiff as the head of the church. This money was then clothed with all the immunities and protection with which the law seeks to invest trust funds. But when De la Peña mixed this trust fund with his own and deposited the whole in the bank to his personal account or credit, he by this act stamped on the said fund his own private marks and unclothed it of all the protection it had. If this money had been deposited in the name of De la Peña as trustee or agent of the plaintiff, I think that it may be presumed that the military authorities would not have confiscated it for the reason that they were looking for insurgent funds only. Again, the plaintiff had no reason to suppose that De la Peña would attempt to strip the fund of its identity, nor had he said or done anything which tended to relieve De la Peña from the legal reponsibility which pertains to the care and custody of trust funds.

The Supreme Court of the United States in the United State vs. Thomas (82 U. S., 337), at page 343, said: "Trustees are only bound to exercise the same care and solicitude with regard to the trust property which they would exercise with regard to their own. Equity will not exact more of them. They are not liable for a loss by theft without their fault. But this exemption ceases when they mix the trust-money with their own, whereby it loses its identity, and they become mere debtors."

If this proposition is sound and is applicable to cases arising in this jurisdiction, and I entertain no doubt on this point, the liability of the estate of De la Peña cannot be doubted. But this court in the majority opinion says: "The fact that he (Agustin de la Peña) placed the trust fund in the bank in his personal account does not add to his responsibility. Such deposit did not make him a debtor who must respond at all hazards. . . . There was no law prohibiting him from depositing it as he did, and there was no law which changed his responsibility, by reason of the deposit."

I assume that the court in using the language which appears in the latter part of the above quotation meant to say that there was no statutory law regulating the question. Questions of this character are not usually governed by statutory law. The law is to be found in the very nature of the trust itself, and, as a general rule, the courts say what facts are necessary to hold the trustee as a debtor.

If De la Peña, after depositing the trust fund in his personal account, had used this money for speculative purposes, such as the buying and selling of sugar or other products of the country, thereby becoming a debtor, there would have been no doubt as to the liability of his estate. Whether he used this money for that purpose the record is silent, but it will be noted that a considerable length of time intervened from the time of the deposit until the funds were confiscated by the military authorities. In fact the record shows that De la Peña deposited on June 27, 1898, P5,259, on June 28 of that year P3,280, and on August 5 of the same year P6,000. The record also shows that these funds were withdrawn and again deposited all together on the 29th of May, 1900, this last deposit amounting to P18,970. These facts strongly indicate that De la Peña had as a matter of fact been using the money in violation of the trust imposed in him. lawph!1.net

If the doctrine announced in the majority opinion be followed in cases hereafter arising in this jurisdiction trust funds will be placed in precarious condition. The position of the trustee will cease to be one of trust.

G.R. No. 90027 March 3, 1993

CA AGRO-INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP., petitioner, vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, respondents.

Dolorfino & Dominguez Law Offices for petitioner.

Danilo B. Banares for private respondent.

 

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

Is the contractual relation between a commercial bank and another party in a contract of rent of a safety deposit box with respect to its contents placed by the latter one of bailor and bailee or one of lessor and lessee?

This is the crux of the present controversy.

On 3 July 1979, petitioner (through its President, Sergio Aguirre) and the spouses Ramon and Paula Pugao entered into an agreement whereby the former purchased from the latter two (2) parcels of land for a consideration of P350,625.00. Of this amount, P75,725.00 was paid as downpayment while the balance was covered by three (3) postdated checks. Among the terms and conditions of the agreement embodied in a Memorandum of True and Actual Agreement of Sale of Land were that the titles to the lots shall be transferred to the petitioner upon full payment of the purchase price and that the owner's copies of the certificates of titles thereto, Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 284655 and 292434, shall be deposited in a safety deposit box of any bank. The same could be withdrawn only upon the joint signatures of a representative of the petitioner and the Pugaos upon full payment of the purchase price. Petitioner, through Sergio Aguirre, and the Pugaos then rented Safety Deposit Box No. 1448 of private respondent Security Bank and Trust Company, a domestic

banking corporation hereinafter referred to as the respondent Bank. For this purpose, both signed a contract of lease (Exhibit "2") which contains, inter alia, the following conditions:

13. The bank is not a depositary of the contents of the safe and it has neither the possession nor control of the same.

14. The bank has no interest whatsoever in said contents, except herein expressly provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith.   1

After the execution of the contract, two (2) renter's keys were given to the renters — one to Aguirre (for the petitioner) and the other to the Pugaos. A guard key remained in the possession of the respondent Bank. The safety deposit box has two (2) keyholes, one for the guard key and the other for the renter's key, and can be opened only with the use of both keys. Petitioner claims that the certificates of title were placed inside the said box.

Thereafter, a certain Mrs. Margarita Ramos offered to buy from the petitioner the two (2) lots at a price of P225.00 per square meter which, as petitioner alleged in its complaint, translates to a profit of P100.00 per square meter or a total of P280,500.00 for the entire property. Mrs. Ramos demanded the execution of a deed of sale which necessarily entailed the production of the certificates of title. In view thereof, Aguirre, accompanied by the Pugaos, then proceeded to the respondent Bank on 4 October 1979 to open the safety deposit box and get the certificates of title. However, when opened in the presence of the Bank's representative, the box yielded no such certificates. Because of the delay in the reconstitution of the title, Mrs. Ramos withdrew her earlier offer to purchase the lots; as a consequence thereof, the petitioner allegedly failed to realize the expected profit of P280,500.00. Hence, the latter filed on 1 September 1980 a complaint 2 for damages against the respondent Bank with the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Pasig, Metro Manila which docketed the same as Civil Case No. 38382.

In its Answer with Counterclaim, 3 respondent Bank alleged that the petitioner has no cause of action because of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the contract of lease (Exhibit "2"); corollarily, loss of any of the items or articles contained in the box could not give rise to an action against it. It then interposed a counterclaim for exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees in the amount of P20,000.00. Petitioner subsequently filed an answer to the counterclaim. 4

In due course, the trial court, now designated as Branch 161 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig, Metro Manila, rendered a decision 5 adverse to the petitioner on 8 December 1986, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing plaintiff's complaint.

On defendant's counterclaim, judgment is hereby rendered ordering plaintiff to pay defendant the amount of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS as attorney's fees.

With costs against plaintiff. 6

The unfavorable verdict is based on the trial court's conclusion that under paragraphs 13 and 14 of the contract of lease, the Bank has no liability for the loss of the certificates of title. The court declared that the said provisions are binding on the parties.

Its motion for reconsideration   7 having been denied, petitioner appealed from the adverse decision to the respondent Court of Appeals which docketed the appeal as CA-G.R. CV No. 15150. Petitioner urged the respondent Court to reverse the challenged decision because the trial court erred in (a) absolving the respondent Bank from liability from the loss, (b) not declaring as null and void, for being contrary to law, public order and public policy, the provisions in the contract for lease of the safety deposit box absolving the Bank from any liability for loss, (c) not concluding that in this jurisdiction, as well as under American jurisprudence, the liability of the Bank is settled and (d) awarding attorney's fees to the Bank and denying the petitioner's prayer for nominal and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.   8

In its Decision promulgated on 4 July 1989, 9 respondent Court affirmed the appealed decision principally on the theory that the contract (Exhibit "2") executed by the petitioner and respondent Bank is in the nature of a contract of lease by virtue of which the petitioner and its co-renter were given control over the safety deposit box and its contents while the Bank retained no right to open the said box because it had neither the possession nor control over it and its contents. As such, the contract is governed by Article 1643 of the Civil Code 10 which provides:

Art. 1643. In the lease of things, one of the parties binds himself to give to another the enjoyment or use of a thing for a price certain, and for a period which may be definite or indefinite. However, no lease for more than ninety-nine years shall be valid.

It invoked Tolentino vs. Gonzales 11 — which held that the owner of the property loses his control over the property leased during the period of the contract — and Article 1975 of the Civil Code which provides:

Art. 1975. The depositary holding certificates, bonds, securities or instruments which earn interest shall be bound to collect the latter when it becomes due, and to take such steps as may be necessary in order that the securities may preserve their value and the rights corresponding to them according to law.

The above provision shall not apply to contracts for the rent of safety deposit boxes.

and then concluded that "[c]learly, the defendant-appellee is not under any duty to maintain the contents of the box. The stipulation absolving the defendant-appellee from liability is in accordance with the nature of the contract of lease and cannot be regarded as contrary to law, public order and public policy." 12 The appellate court was quick to add, however, that under the contract of lease of the safety deposit box, respondent Bank is not completely free from liability as it may still be made answerable in case unauthorized persons enter into the vault area or when the rented box is forced open. Thus, as expressly provided for in stipulation number 8 of the contract in question:

8. The Bank shall use due diligence that no unauthorized person shall be admitted to any rented safe and beyond this, the Bank will not be responsible for the contents of any safe rented from it.   13

Its motion for reconsideration 14 having been denied in the respondent Court's Resolution of 28 August 1989, 15 petitioner took this recourse under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and urges Us to review and set aside the respondent Court's ruling. Petitioner avers that both the respondent Court and the trial court (a) did not properly and legally apply the correct law in this case, (b) acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction amounting to lack thereof and (c)

set a precedent that is contrary to, or is a departure from precedents adhered to and affirmed by decisions of this Court and precepts in American jurisprudence adopted in the Philippines. It reiterates the arguments it had raised in its motion to reconsider the trial court's decision, the brief submitted to the respondent Court and the motion to reconsider the latter's decision. In a nutshell, petitioner maintains that regardless of nomenclature, the contract for the rent of the safety deposit box (Exhibit "2") is actually a contract of deposit governed by Title XII, Book IV of the Civil Code of thePhilippines. 16 Accordingly, it is claimed that the respondent Bank is liable for the loss of the certificates of title pursuant to Article 1972 of the said Code which provides:

Art. 1972. The depositary is obliged to keep the thing safely and to return it, when required, to the depositor, or to his heirs and successors, or to the person who may have been designated in the contract. His responsibility, with regard to the safekeeping and the loss of the thing, shall be governed by the provisions of Title I of this Book.

If the deposit is gratuitous, this fact shall be taken into account in determining the degree of care that the depositary must observe.

Petitioner then quotes a passage from American Jurisprudence   17 which is supposed to expound on the prevailing rule in the United States, to wit:

The prevailing rule appears to be that where a safe-deposit company leases a safe-deposit box or safe and the lessee takes possession of the box or safe and places therein his securities or other valuables, the relation of bailee and bail or is created between the parties to the transaction as to such securities or other valuables; the fact that thesafe-deposit company does not know, and that it is not expected that it shall know, the character or description of the property which is deposited in such safe-deposit box or safe does not change that relation. That access to the contents of the safe-deposit box can be had only by the use of a key retained by the lessee ( whether it is the sole key or one to be used in connection with one retained by the lessor) does not operate to alter the foregoing rule. The argument that there is not, in such a case, a delivery of exclusive possession and control to the deposit company, and that therefore the situation is entirely different from that of ordinary bailment, has been generally rejected by the courts, usually on the ground that as possession must be either in the depositor or in the company, it should reasonably be considered as in the latter rather than in the former, since the company is, by the nature of the contract, given absolute control of access to the property, and the depositor cannot gain access thereto without the consent and active participation of the company. . . . (citations omitted).

and a segment from Words and Phrases 18 which states that a contract for the rental of a bank safety deposit box in consideration of a fixed amount at stated periods is a bailment for hire.

Petitioner further argues that conditions 13 and 14 of the questioned contract are contrary to law and public policy and should be declared null and void. In support thereof, it cites Article 1306 of the Civil Code which provides that parties to a contract may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.

After the respondent Bank filed its comment, this Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to simultaneously submit their respective Memoranda.

The petition is partly meritorious.

We agree with the petitioner's contention that the contract for the rent of the safety deposit box is not an ordinary contract of lease as defined in Article 1643 of the Civil Code. However, We do not fully subscribe to its view that the same is a contract of deposit that is to be strictly governed by the provisions in the Civil Code on deposit; 19 the contract in the case at bar is a special kind of deposit. It cannot be characterized as an ordinary contract of lease under Article 1643 because the full and absolute possession and control of the safety deposit box was not given to the joint renters — the petitioner and the Pugaos. The guard key of the box remained with the respondent Bank; without this key, neither of the renters could open the box. On the other hand, the respondent Bank could not likewise open the box without the renter's key. In this case, the said key had a duplicate which was made so that both renters could have access to the box.

Hence, the authorities cited by the respondent Court 20 on this point do not apply. Neither could Article 1975, also relied upon by the respondent Court, be invoked as an argument against the deposit theory. Obviously, the first paragraph of such provision cannot apply to a depositary of certificates, bonds, securities or instruments which earn interest if such documents are kept in a rented safety deposit box. It is clear that the depositary cannot open the box without the renter being present.

We observe, however, that the deposit theory itself does not altogether find unanimous support even in American jurisprudence. We agree with the petitioner that under the latter, the prevailing rule is that the relation between a bank renting out safe-deposit boxes and its customer with respect to the contents of the box is that of a bail or and bailee, the bailment being for hire and mutual benefit. 21 This is just the prevailing view because:

There is, however, some support for the view that the relationship in question might be more properly characterized as that of landlord and tenant, or lessor and lessee. It has also been suggested that it should be characterized as that of licensor and licensee. The relation between a bank, safe-deposit company, or storage company, and the renter of a safe-deposit box therein, is often described as contractual, express or implied, oral or written, in whole or in part. But there is apparently no jurisdiction in which any rule other than that applicable to bailments governs questions of the liability and rights of the parties in respect of loss of the contents of safe-deposit boxes. 22 (citations omitted)

In the context of our laws which authorize banking institutions to rent out safety deposit boxes, it is clear that in this jurisdiction, the prevailing rule in the United States has been adopted. Section 72 of the General Banking Act 23pertinently provides:

Sec. 72. In addition to the operations specifically authorized elsewhere in this Act, banking institutions other than building and loan associations may perform the following services:

(a) Receive in custody funds, documents, and valuable objects, and rent safety deposit boxes for the safeguarding of such effects.

xxx xxx xxx

The banks shall perform the services permitted under subsections (a), (b) and (c) of this section as depositories   or as agents. . . .   24   (emphasis supplied)

Note that the primary function is still found within the parameters of a contract of   deposit ,   i.e., the receiving in custody of funds, documents and other valuable objects for safekeeping. The renting out of the safety deposit boxes is not independent from, but related to or in conjunction with, this principal function. A contract of deposit may be entered into orally or in writing 25 and, pursuant to Article 1306 of the Civil Code, the parties thereto may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. The depositary's responsibility for the safekeeping of the objects deposited in the case at bar is governed by Title I, Book IV of the Civil Code. Accordingly, the depositary would be liable if, in performing its obligation, it is found guilty of fraud, negligence, delay or contravention of the tenor of the agreement. 26 In the absence of any stipulation prescribing the degree of diligence required, that of a good father of a family is to be observed. 27 Hence, any stipulation exempting the depositary from any liability arising from the loss of the thing deposited on account of fraud, negligence or delay would be void for being contrary to law and public policy. In the instant case, petitioner maintains that conditions 13 and 14 of the questioned contract of lease of the safety deposit box, which read:

13. The bank is not a depositary of the contents of the safe and it has neither the possession nor control of the same.

14. The bank has no interest whatsoever in said contents, except herein expressly provided, and it assumes absolutely no liability in connection therewith. 28

are void as they are contrary to law and public policy. We find Ourselves in agreement with this proposition for indeed, said provisions are inconsistent with the respondent Bank's responsibility as a depositary under Section 72(a) of the General Banking Act. Both exempt the latter from any liability except as contemplated in condition 8 thereof which limits its duty to exercise reasonable diligence only with respect to who shall be admitted to any rented safe, to wit:

8. The Bank shall use due diligence that no unauthorized person shall be admitted to any rented safe and beyond this, the Bank will not be responsible for the contents of any safe rented from it. 29

Furthermore, condition 13 stands on a wrong premise and is contrary to the actual practice of the Bank. It is not correct to assert that the Bank has neither the possession nor control of the contents of the box since in fact, the safety deposit box itself is located in its premises and is under its absolute control; moreover, the respondent Bank keeps the guard key to the said box. As stated earlier, renters cannot open their respective boxes unless the Bank cooperates by presenting and using this guard key. Clearly then, to the extent above stated, the foregoing conditions in the contract in question are void and ineffective. It has been said:

With respect to property deposited in a safe-deposit box by a customer of a safe-deposit company, the parties, since the relation is a contractual one, may by special contract define their respective duties or provide for

increasing or limiting the liability of the deposit company, provided such contract is not in violation of law or public policy. It must clearly appear that there actually was such a special contract, however, in order to vary the ordinary obligations implied by law from the relationship of the parties; liability of the deposit company will not be enlarged or restricted by words of doubtful meaning. The company, in rentingsafe-deposit boxes, cannot exempt itself from liability for loss of the contents by its own fraud or negligence or that of its agents or servants, and if a provision of the contract may be construed as an attempt to do so, it will be held ineffective for the purpose. Although it has been held that the lessor of a safe-deposit box cannot limit its liability for loss of the contents thereof through its own negligence, the view has been taken that such a lessor may limits its liability to some extent by agreement or stipulation. 30 (citations omitted)

Thus, we reach the same conclusion which the Court of Appeals arrived at, that is, that the petition should be dismissed, but on grounds quite different from those relied upon by the Court of Appeals. In the instant case, the respondent Bank's exoneration cannot, contrary to the holding of the Court of Appeals, be based on or proceed from a characterization of the impugned contract as a contract of lease, but rather on the fact that no competent proof was presented to show that respondent Bank was aware of the agreement between the petitioner and the Pugaos to the effect that the certificates of title were withdrawable from the safety deposit box only upon both parties' joint signatures, and that no evidence was submitted to reveal that the loss of the certificates of title was due to the fraud or negligence of the respondent Bank. This in turn flows from this Court's determination that the contract involved was one of deposit. Since both the petitioner and the Pugaos agreed that each should have one (1) renter's key, it was obvious that either of them could ask the Bank for access to the safety deposit box and, with the use of such key and the Bank's own guard key, could open the said box, without the other renter being present.

Since, however, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the filing of the complaint and no bad faith on its part had been established, the trial court erred in condemning the petitioner to pay the respondent Bank attorney's fees. To this extent, the Decision (dispositive portion) of public respondent Court of Appeals must be modified.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is partially GRANTED by deleting the award for attorney's fees from the 4 July 1989 Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 15150. As modified, and subject to the pronouncement We made above on the nature of the relationship between the parties in a contract of lease of safety deposit boxes, the dispositive portion of the said Decision is hereby AFFIRMED and the instant Petition for Review is otherwise DENIED for lack of merit.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, Bidin, Romero and Melo, JJ., concur.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., is on leave.

[G.R. No. 160544.  February 21, 2005]

TRIPLE-V vs. FILIPINO MERCHANTS

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 21 2005.

G.R. No. 160544 (Triple-V Food Services, Inc. vs. Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc.)

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari is the decision[1] dated October 21, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 71223, affirming an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court at Makati City, Branch 148, in its Civil Case No. 98-838, an action for damages thereat filed by respondent Filipino Merchants Insurance, Company, Inc., against the herein petitioner, Triple-V Food Services, Inc.

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 with plate number UBU 955, 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). Having indemnified Crispa in the amount of P669.500 for the loss of the subject vehicle, 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., thereat docketed as Civil Case No. 98-838 which was raffled to Branch 148.

In its answer, petitioner argued that the complaint failed to aver facts to support the allegations of recklessness and negligence committed in the safekeeping and custody of the subject vehicle, claiming that it and its employees wasted no time in ascertaining the loss of the car and in informing De Asis of the discovery of the loss. Petitioner further argued that in accepting the complimentary valet parking service, De Asis received a parking ticket where under it is so provided that "[Management and staff will not be responsible for any loss of or damage incurred on the vehicle nor of valuables contained therein", a provision which, to petitioner's mind, is an explicit waiver of any right to claim indemnity for the loss of the car; and that De Asis knowingly assumed the risk of loss when she allowed petitioner to park her vehicle, adding that its valet parking service did not include extending a contract of insurance or warranty for the loss of the vehicle.

During trial, petitioner challenged FMICI's subrogation to Crispa's right to file a claim for the loss of the car, arguing that theft is not a risk insured against under FMICI's Insurance Policy No. PC-5975 for the subject vehicle.

In a decision dated June 22, 2001, the trial court rendered judgment for respondent FMICI, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff (FMICI) and against the defendant Triple V (herein petitioner) and the latter is hereby ordered to pay plaintiff the following:

1.  The amount of P669,500.00, representing actual damages plus compounded (sic);

2.  The amount of P30,000.00 as acceptance fee plus the amount equal to 25% of the total amount due as attorney's fees;

3.  The amount of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;

4.  Plus, cost of suit.

Defendant Triple V is not therefore precluded from taking appropriate action against defendant Armando Madridano.

SO ORDERED.

Obviously displeased, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals reiterating its argument that it was not a depositary of the subject car and that it exercised due diligence and prudence in the safe keeping of the vehicle, in handling the car-napping incident and in the supervision

of its employees. It further argued that there was no valid subrogation of rights between Crispa and respondent FMICI.

In a decision dated October 21, 2003, [2] the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal and affirmed the appealed decision of the trial court, thus:

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the assailed June 22, 2001 Decision of the RTC of Makati City - Branch 148 in Civil Case No. 98-838 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

In so dismissing the appeal and affirming the appealed decision, the appellate court agreed with the findings and conclusions of the trial court that: (a) petitioner was a depositary of the subject vehicle; (b) petitioner was negligent in its duties as a depositary thereof and as an employer of the valet attendant; and (c) there was a valid subrogation of rights between Crispa and respondent FMICI.

Hence, petitioner's present recourse.

We agree with the two (2) courts below.

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.[3] 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. [4]

Hence, and as aptly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, 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.

Petitioner's argument that there was no valid subrogation of rights between Crispa and FMICI because theft was not a risk insured against under FMICI's Insurance Policy No. PC-5975 holds no water.

Insurance Policy No. PC-5975 which respondent FMICI issued to Crispa contains, among others things, the following item: "Insured's Estimate of Value of Scheduled Vehicle- P800.000".[5] On the basis of such item, the trial court concluded that the coverage includes a full comprehensive insurance of the vehicle in case of damage or loss. Besides, Crispa paid a premium of P10,304 to cover theft. This is clearly shown in the breakdown of premiums in the same policy. [6] Thus, having indemnified CRISPA for the stolen car, FMICI, as correctly ruled by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, was properly subrogated to Crispa's rights against petitioner, pursuant to   Article 2207   of the New Civil Code [7] .

Anent the trial court's findings of negligence on the part of the petitioner, which findings were affirmed by the appellate court, we have consistently ruled that findings of facts of trial courts, more so when affirmed, as here, by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on this Court unless the trial court itself ignored, overlooked or misconstrued facts

and circumstances which, if considered, warrant a reversal of the outcome of the case.[8] This is not so in the case at bar. For, we have ourselves reviewed the records and find no justification to deviate from the trial court's findings.

WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

[G.R. No. 126780. February 17, 2005]

YHT REALTY CORPORATION, ERLINDA LAINEZ and ANICIA PAYAM, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and MAURICE McLOUGHLIN, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA, J.:

The primary question of interest before this Court is the only legal issue in the case: It is whether 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.

Before this Court is a Rule 45 petition for review of the Decision[1] dated 19 October 1995 of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the Decision[2] dated 16 December 1991 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, of Manila, finding YHT Realty Corporation, Brunhilda Mata-Tan (Tan), Erlinda Lainez (Lainez) and Anicia Payam (Payam) jointly and solidarily liable for damages in an action filed by Maurice McLoughlin (McLoughlin) for the loss of his American and Australian dollars deposited in the safety deposit box of Tropicana Copacabana Apartment Hotel, owned and operated by YHT Realty Corporation.

The factual backdrop of the case follow.

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 befriended McLoughlin by showing him around, introducing him to important people, accompanying him in visiting impoverished street children and assisting him in buying gifts for the children and in distributing the same to charitable institutions for poor children. 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 McLoughlins booking at the Tropicana where he started staying during his trips to the Philippines from December 1984 to September 1987.[3]

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. As a tourist, McLoughlin was aware of the procedure observed by Tropicana relative to its safety deposit boxes. 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. When a registered guest wished to open his safety deposit box, he alone could personally request the management who then would assign one of its employees to accompany the guest and assist him in opening the safety deposit box with the two keys.[4]

McLoughlin allegedly placed the following in his safety deposit box: Fifteen Thousand US Dollars (US$15,000.00) which he placed in two envelopes, one envelope containing Ten Thousand US Dollars (US$10,000.00) and the other envelope Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000.00); Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00) which he also placed in another envelope; two (2) other envelopes containing letters and credit cards; two (2) bankbooks; and a checkbook, arranged side by side inside the safety deposit box.[5]

On 12 December 1987, before leaving for a brief trip to Hongkong, McLoughlin opened his safety deposit box with his key and with the key of the management and took therefrom the envelope containing Five Thousand US Dollars (US$5,000.00), the envelope containing Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00), his passports and his credit cards.[6] McLoughlin left the other items in the box as he did not check out of his room at the Tropicana during his short visit to Hongkong. 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.[7] Since he had no idea whether somebody else had tampered with his safety deposit box, he thought that it was just a result of bad accounting since he did not spend anything from that envelope.[8]

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.[9]

When McLoughlin came back to the Philippines on 4 April 1988, he asked Lainez if some money and/or jewelry which he had lost were found and returned to her or to the management. However, 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. He placed therein one (1) envelope containing Fifteen Thousand US Dollars (US$15,000.00), another envelope containing Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00) and other envelopes containing his traveling papers/documents. On 16 April 1988, McLoughlin requested Lainez and Payam to open his safety deposit box. He noticed that in the envelope containing Fifteen Thousand US Dollars (US$15,000.00), Two Thousand US Dollars (US$2,000.00) were missing and in the envelope previously containing Ten Thousand Australian Dollars (AUS$10,000.00), Four Thousand Five Hundred Australian Dollars (AUS$4,500.00) were missing.[10]

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.[11] McLoughlin went up to his room where Tan was staying and confronted her. Tan admitted that she had stolen McLoughlins key and was able to open the safety deposit box with the assistance of Lopez, Payam and Lainez.[12] Lopez also told McLoughlin that Tan stole the key assigned to McLoughlin while the latter was asleep.[13]

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 dated 21 April 1988. The promissory note reads as follows:

I promise to pay Mr. Maurice McLoughlin the amount of AUS$4,000.00 and US$2,000.00 or its equivalent in Philippine currency on or before May 5, 1988.[14]

Lopez requested Tan to sign the promissory note which the latter did and Lopez also signed as a witness. Despite the execution of promissory note by Tan, McLoughlin insisted that it must be the hotel who must assume responsibility for the loss he suffered. However, Lopez refused to accept the responsibility relying on the conditions for renting the safety deposit box entitled Undertaking For the Use Of Safety Deposit Box,[15] specifically paragraphs (2) and (4) thereof, to wit:

2. To release and hold free and blameless TROPICANA APARTMENT HOTEL from any liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or use of the said deposit box for any cause whatsoever,

including but not limited to the presentation or use thereof by any other person should the key be lost;

. . .

4. To return the key and execute the RELEASE in favor of TROPICANA APARTMENT HOTEL upon giving up the use of the box.[16]

On 17 May 1988, McLoughlin went back to Australia and he consulted his lawyers as to the validity of the abovementioned stipulations. They opined that the stipulations are void for being violative of universal hotel practices and customs. His lawyers prepared a letter dated 30 May 1988 which was signed by McLoughlin and sent to President Corazon Aquino. [17] The Office of the President referred the letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) which forwarded the same to the Western Police District (WPD).[18]

After receiving a copy of the indorsement in Australia, McLoughlin came to the Philippines and registered again as a hotel guest of Tropicana. McLoughlin went to Malacaňang to follow up on his letter but he was instructed to go to the DOJ. The DOJ directed him to proceed to the WPD for documentation. But McLoughlin went back to Australia as he had an urgent business matter to attend to.

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.[19]

McLoughlin left again for Australia and upon his return to the Philippines on 25 August 1989 to pursue his claims against petitioners, the WPD conducted an investigation which resulted in the preparation of an affidavit which was forwarded to the Manila City Fiscals Office. Said affidavit became the basis of preliminary investigation. However, McLoughlin left again for Australia without receiving the notice of the hearing on 24 November 1989. Thus, the case at the Fiscals Office was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Mcloughlin requested the reinstatement of the criminal charge for theft. In the meantime, McLoughlin and his lawyers wrote letters of demand to those having responsibility to pay the damage. Then he left again for Australia.

Upon his return on 22 October 1990, he registered at the Echelon Towers at Malate, Manila. Meetings were held between McLoughlin and his lawyer which resulted to the filing of a complaint for damages on 3 December 1990 against YHT Realty Corporation, Lopez, Lainez, Payam and Tan (defendants) for the loss of McLoughlins money which was discovered on 16 April 1988. After filing the complaint, McLoughlin left again for Australia to attend to an urgent business matter. Tan and Lopez, however, were not served with summons, and trial proceeded with only Lainez, Payam and YHT Realty Corporation as defendants.

After defendants had filed their Pre-Trial Brief admitting that they had previously allowed and assisted Tan to open the safety deposit box, McLoughlin filed an Amended/Supplemental Complaint[20] dated 10 June 1991 which included another incident of loss of money and jewelry in the safety deposit box rented by McLoughlin in the same hotel which took place prior to 16 April 1988. [21] The trial court admitted the Amended/Supplemental Complaint.

During the trial of the case, McLoughlin had been in and out of the country to attend to urgent business in Australia, and while staying in the Philippines to attend the hearing, he incurred expenses for hotel bills, airfare and other transportation expenses, long distance calls to Australia, Meralco power expenses, and expenses for food and maintenance, among others.[22]

After trial, the RTC of Manila rendered judgment in favor of McLoughlin, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, above premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered by this Court in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants, to wit:

1. Ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum of US$11,400.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency of P342,000.00, more or less, and the sum of AUS$4,500.00 or its equivalent in Philippine Currency of P99,000.00, or a total of P441,000.00, more or less, with 12% interest from April 16 1988 until said amount has been paid to plaintiff (Item 1, Exhibit CC);

2. Ordering defendants, jointly and severally to pay plaintiff the sum of P3,674,238.00 as actual and consequential damages arising from the loss of his Australian and American dollars and jewelries complained against and in prosecuting his claim and rights administratively and judicially (Items II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, and IX, Exh. CC);

3. Ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum of P500,000.00 as moral damages (Item X, Exh. CC);

4. Ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum of P350,000.00 as exemplary damages (Item XI, Exh. CC);

5. And ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to pay litigation expenses in the sum of P200,000.00 (Item XII, Exh. CC);

6. Ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum of P200,000.00 as attorneys fees, and a fee of P3,000.00 for every appearance; and

7. Plus costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.[23]

The trial court found that McLoughlins allegations as to the fact of loss and as to the amount of money he lost were sufficiently shown by his direct and straightforward manner of testifying in court and found him to be credible and

worthy of belief as it was established that McLoughlins money, kept in Tropicanas safety deposit box, was taken by Tan without McLoughlins consent. The taking was effected through the use of the master key which was in the possession of the management. Payam and Lainez allowed Tan to use the master key without authority from McLoughlin. The trial court added that if McLoughlin had not lost his dollars, he would not have gone through the trouble and personal inconvenience of seeking aid and assistance from the Office of the President, DOJ, police authorities and the City Fiscals Office in his desire to recover his losses from the hotel management and Tan.[24]

As regards the loss of Seven Thousand US Dollars (US$7,000.00) and jewelry worth approximately One Thousand Two Hundred US Dollars (US$1,200.00) which allegedly occurred during his stay at Tropicana previous to 4 April 1988, no claim was made by McLoughlin for such losses in his complaint dated 21 November 1990 because he was not sure how they were lost and who the responsible persons were. But considering the admission of the defendants in their pre-trial brief that on three previous occasions they allowed Tan to open the box, the trial court opined that it was logical and reasonable to presume that his personal assets consisting of Seven Thousand US Dollars (US$7,000.00) and jewelry were taken by Tan from the safety deposit box without McLoughlins consent through the cooperation of Payam and Lainez.[25]

The trial court also found that defendants acted with gross negligence in the performance and exercise of their duties and obligations as innkeepers and were therefore liable to answer for the losses incurred by McLoughlin.[26]

Moreover, the trial court ruled that paragraphs (2) and (4) of the Undertaking For The Use Of Safety Deposit Box are not valid for being contrary to the express mandate of Article 2003 of the New Civil Code and against public policy.[27] Thus, there being fraud or wanton conduct on the part of defendants, they should be responsible for all damages which may be attributed to the non-performance of their contractual obligations.[28]

The Court of Appeals affirmed the disquisitions made by the lower court except as to the amount of damages awarded. The decretal text of the appellate courts decision reads:

THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED but modified as follows:

The appellants are directed jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff/appellee the following amounts:

1) P153,200.00 representing the peso equivalent of US$2,000.00 and AUS$4,500.00;

2) P308,880.80, representing the peso value for the air fares from Sidney [sic] to Manila and back for a total of eleven (11) trips;

3) One-half of P336,207.05 or P168,103.52 representing payment to Tropicana Apartment Hotel;

4) One-half of P152,683.57 or P76,341.785 representing payment to Echelon Tower;

5) One-half of P179,863.20 or P89,931.60 for the taxi xxx transportation from the residence to Sidney [sic] Airport and from MIA to the hotel here in Manila, for the eleven (11) trips;

6) One-half of P7,801.94 or P3,900.97 representing Meralco power expenses;

7) One-half of P356,400.00 or P178,000.00 representing expenses for food and maintenance;

8) P50,000.00 for moral damages;

9) P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and

10) P200,000 representing attorneys fees.

With costs.

SO ORDERED.[29]

Unperturbed, YHT Realty Corporation, Lainez and Payam went to this Court in this appeal by certiorari.

Petitioners submit for resolution by this Court the following issues: (a) whether the appellate courts conclusion on the alleged prior existence and subsequent loss of the subject money and jewelry is supported by the evidence on record; (b) whether the finding of gross negligence on the part of petitioners in the performance of their duties as innkeepers is supported by the evidence on record; (c) whether the Undertaking For The Use of Safety Deposit Box admittedly executed by private respondent is null and void; and (d) whether the damages awarded to private respondent, as well as the amounts thereof, are proper under the circumstances.[30]

The petition is devoid of merit.

It is worthy of note that the thrust of Rule 45 is the resolution only of questions of law and any peripheral factual question addressed to this Court is beyond the bounds of this mode of review.

Petitioners point out that the evidence on record is insufficient to prove the fact of prior existence of the dollars and the jewelry which had been lost while deposited in the safety deposit boxes of Tropicana, the basis of the trial court and the appellate court being the sole testimony of McLoughlin as to the contents thereof. Likewise, petitioners dispute the finding of gross negligence on their part as not supported by the evidence on record.

We are not persuaded. We adhere 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 findings are factual and therefore beyond the ambit of the present petition.

The trial court had the occasion to observe the demeanor of McLoughlin while testifying which reflected the veracity of the facts testified to by him. On this score, we give full credence to the appreciation of testimonial evidence by the trial court especially if what is at issue is the credibility of the witness. The oft-repeated principle is that 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. [31] 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.[32]

We are also not impressed by petitioners argument that the finding of gross negligence by the lower court as affirmed by the appellate court is not supported by evidence. The evidence reveals that two keys are required to open the safety deposit boxes of Tropicana. One key is assigned to the guest while the other remains in the possession of the management. If the guest desires to open his safety deposit box, he must request the management for the other key to open the same. In other words, the guest alone cannot open the safety deposit box without the assistance of the management or its employees. With more reason that access to the safety deposit box should be denied if the one requesting for the opening of the safety deposit box is a stranger. Thus, in case of loss of any item deposited in the safety deposit box, it is inevitable to conclude that the management had at least a hand in the consummation of the taking, unless the reason for the loss is force majeure.

Noteworthy is the fact that Payam and Lainez, who were employees of Tropicana, had custody of the master key of the management when the loss took place. In fact, they even admitted that they assisted Tan on three separate occasions in opening McLoughlins safety deposit box. [33] This only proves that Tropicana had prior knowledge that a person aside from the registered guest had access to the safety deposit box. Yet the management failed to notify McLoughlin of the incident and waited for him to discover the taking before it disclosed the

matter to him. Therefore, Tropicana should be held responsible for the damage suffered by McLoughlin by reason of the negligence of its employees.

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. [34] 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 McLoughlins money could and should have been avoided.

The management contends, however, that McLoughlin, by his act, made its employees believe that Tan was his spouse for she was always with him most of the time. The evidence on record, however, is bereft of any showing that McLoughlin introduced Tan to the management as his wife. Such an inference from the act of McLoughlin will not exculpate the petitioners from liability in the absence of any showing that he made the management believe that Tan was his wife or was duly authorized to have access to the safety deposit box. Mere close companionship and intimacy are not enough to warrant such conclusion considering that what is involved in the instant case is the very safety of McLoughlins deposit. If only petitioners exercised due diligence in taking care of McLoughlins safety deposit box, they should have confronted him as to his relationship with Tan considering that the latter had been observed opening McLoughlins safety deposit box a number of times at the early hours of the morning. Tans acts should have prompted the management to investigate her relationship with McLoughlin. Then, petitioners would have exercised due diligence required of them. Failure to do so warrants the conclusion that the management had been remiss in complying with the obligations imposed upon hotel-keepers under the law.

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. Also, this Court has ruled that if an employee is found negligent, it is presumed that the employer was negligent in selecting and/or supervising him for it is hard for the victim to prove the negligence of such employer. [35] Thus, given the fact that the loss of McLoughlins money was consummated through the negligence of Tropicanas employees in allowing Tan to open the safety deposit box without the guests consent, both the assisting employees and YHT Realty Corporation itself, as owner and operator of Tropicana, should be held solidarily liable pursuant to Article 2193.[36]

The issue of whether the Undertaking For The Use of Safety Deposit Box executed by McLoughlin is tainted with nullity presents a legal question appropriate for resolution in this petition. Notably, both the trial court and the

appellate court found the same to be null and void. We find no reason to reverse their common conclusion. Article 2003 is controlling, thus:

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[37] is suppressed or diminished shall be void.

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 carriers business is imbued with public interest. Catering to the public, hotelkeepers are bound 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 to the public to be negated or diluted by any contrary stipulation in so-called undertakings that ordinarily appear in prepared forms imposed by hotel keepers on guests for their signature.

In an early case,[38] the Court of Appeals through its then Presiding Justice (later Associate Justice of the Court) Jose P. Bengzon, ruled that to hold hotelkeepers or innkeeper liable for the effects of their guests, it is not necessary that they be actually delivered to the innkeepers or their employees. It is enough that such effects are within the hotel or inn.[39] With greater reason should the liability of the hotelkeeper be enforced when the missing items are taken without the guests knowledge and consent from a safety deposit box provided by the hotel itself, as in this case.

Paragraphs (2) and (4) of the undertaking manifestly contravene Article 2003 of the New Civil Code for they allow Tropicana to be released from liability arising from any loss in the contents and/or use of the safety deposit box for any cause whatsoever.[40] Evidently, the undertaking was intended to bar any claim against Tropicana for any loss of the contents of the safety deposit box whether or not negligence was incurred by Tropicana or its employees. The New Civil Code is explicit that the responsibility of the hotel-keeper shall extend to loss of, or injury to, the personal property of the guests even if caused by servants or employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well as by strangers, except as it may proceed from any force majeure.[41] It is the loss throughforce majeure that may spare the hotel-keeper from liability. In the case at bar, there is no showing that the act of the thief or robber was done with the use of arms or through an irresistible force to qualify the same as force majeure.[42]

Petitioners likewise anchor their defense on Article 2002[43] which exempts the hotel-keeper from liability if the loss is due to the acts of his guest, his family, or visitors. Even a cursory reading of the provision would lead us to reject petitioners contention. The justification they raise would render nugatory the public interest sought to be protected by the provision. What if the negligence of

the employer or its employees facilitated the consummation of a crime committed by the registered guests relatives or visitor? Should the law exculpate the hotel from liability since the loss was due to the act of the visitor of the registered guest of the hotel? Hence, 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. A depositary is not responsible for the loss of goods by theft, unless his actionable negligence contributes to the loss.[44]

In the case at bar, the responsibility of securing the safety deposit box was shared not only by the guest himself but also by the management since two keys are necessary to open the safety deposit box. Without the assistance of hotel employees, the loss would not have occurred. 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. To rule otherwise would result in undermining the safety of the safety deposit boxes in hotels for the management will be given imprimatur to allow any person, under the pretense of being a family member or a visitor of the guest, to have access to the safety deposit box without fear of any liability that will attach thereafter in case such person turns out to be a complete stranger. This will allow the hotel to evade responsibility for any liability incurred by its employees in conspiracy with the guests relatives and visitors.

Petitioners contend that McLoughlins case was mounted on the theory of contract, but the trial court and the appellate court upheld the grant of the claims of the latter on the basis of tort. [45] There is nothing anomalous in how the lower courts decided the controversy for this Court has pronounced a jurisprudential rule that tort liability can exist even if there are already contractual relations. The act that breaks the contract may also be tort.[46]

As to damages awarded to McLoughlin, we see no reason to modify the amounts awarded by the appellate court for the same were based on facts and law. It is within the province of lower courts to settle factual issues such as the proper amount of damages awarded and such finding is binding upon this Court especially if sufficiently proven by evidence and not unconscionable or excessive. Thus, the appellate court correctly awarded McLoughlin Two Thousand US Dollars (US$2,000.00) and Four Thousand Five Hundred Australian dollars (AUS$4,500.00) or their peso equivalent at the time of payment,[47]being the amounts duly proven by evidence.[48] The alleged loss that took place prior to 16 April 1988 was not considered since the amounts alleged to have been taken were not sufficiently established by evidence. The appellate court also correctly awarded the sum of P308,880.80, representing the peso value for the air fares from Sydney to Manila and back for a total of eleven (11) trips;[49] one-half of P336,207.05 or P168,103.52 representing payment to Tropicana;[50] one-half of P152,683.57 or P76,341.785 representing payment to Echelon Tower;[51] one-half of P179,863.20 or P89,931.60 for the taxi or transportation expenses from McLoughlins residence to Sydney Airport and from MIA to the hotel here in Manila, for the eleven (11) trips; [52] one-half ofP7,801.94

or P3,900.97 representing Meralco power expenses;[53] one-half of P356,400.00 or P178,000.00 representing expenses for food and maintenance.[54]

The amount of P50,000.00 for moral damages is reasonable. Although trial courts are given discretion to determine the amount of moral damages, the appellate court may modify or change the amount awarded when it is palpably and scandalously excessive. Moral damages are not intended to enrich a complainant at the expense of a defendant. They are awarded only to enable the injured party to obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone, by reason of defendants culpable action.[55]

The awards of P10,000.00 as exemplary damages and P200,000.00 representing attorneys fees are likewise sustained.

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 19 October 1995 is hereby AFFIRMED. Petitioners are directed, jointly and severally, to pay private respondent the following amounts:

(1) US$2,000.00 and AUS$4,500.00 or their peso equivalent at the time of payment;

(2) P308,880.80, representing the peso value for the air fares from Sydney to Manila and back for a total of eleven (11) trips;

(3) One-half of P336,207.05 or P168,103.52 representing payment to Tropicana Copacabana Apartment Hotel;

(4) One-half of P152,683.57 or P76,341.785 representing payment to Echelon Tower;

(5) One-half of P179,863.20 or P89,931.60 for the taxi or transportation expense from McLoughlins residence to Sydney Airport and from MIA to the hotel here in Manila, for the eleven (11) trips;

(6) One-half of P7,801.94 or P3,900.97 representing Meralco power expenses;

(7) One-half of P356,400.00 or P178,200.00 representing expenses for food and maintenance;

(8) P50,000.00 for moral damages;

(9) P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and

(10) P200,000 representing attorneys fees.

With costs.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, (Chairman), Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.Austria-Martinez, J., no part.

[G.R. No. 119231. April 18, 1996]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. HON. PRES. JUDGE BENITO C. SE, JR., RTC, BR. 45, MANILA; NOAHS ARKSUGAR REFINERY; ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO, JIMMY T. GO and WILSON T. GO, respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. COMMERCIAL LAW; WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS LAW; THE UNCONDITIONAL PRESENTMENT OF THE RECEIPTS FOR PAYMENT CARRIED WITH IT THE ADMISSIONS OF THE EXISTENCE AND VALIDITY OF THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS WRITTEN ON THE FACE OF THE WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS, INCLUDING THE UNQUALIFIED RECOGNITION OF THE PAYMENT OF WAREHOUSEMANS LIEN FOR STORAGE FEES AND PRESERVATION EXPENSES; CASE AT BAR. - Petitioner is in estoppel in disclaiming liability for the payment of storage fees due the private respondents as warehouseman while claiming to be entitled to the sugar stocks covered by the subject Warehouse Receipts on the basis of which it anchors its claim for payment or delivery of the sugar stocks. The unconditional presentment of the receipts by the petitioner for payment against private respondents on the strength of the provisions of the Warehouse Receipts Law (R.A. 2137) carried with it the admission of the existence and validity of the terms, conditions and stipulations written on the face of the Warehouse Receipts, including the unqualified recognition of the payment of warehousemans lien for storage fees and preservation expenses. Petitioner may not now retrieve the sugar stocks without paying the lien due private respondents as warehouseman.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; WAREHOUSEMANS LIEN; POSSESSORY IN NATURE. - While the PNB is entitled to the stocks of sugar as the endorsee of the quedans, delivery to it shall be effected only upon payment of the storage fees. Imperative is the right of the warehouseman to demand payment of his lien at this juncture, because, in accordance with Section 29 of the Warehouse Receipts Law, the warehouseman loses his lien upon goods by surrendering possession thereof. In other words, the lien may be lost where the warehouseman surrenders the possession of the goods without requiring payment of his lien, because a warehousemans lien is possessory in nature.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Rolan A. Nieto for petitioner.Madella & Cruz Law Offices for private respondents.

D E C I S I O N

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

The source of conflict herein is the question as to whether the Philippine National Bank should pay storage fees for sugar stocks covered by five (5) Warehouse Receipts stored in the warehouse of private respondents in the face of the Court of Appeals decision (affirmed by the Supreme Court) declaring the Philippine National Bank as the owner of the said sugar stocks and ordering their delivery to the said bank. From the same facts but on a different perspective, it can be said that the issue is: Can the warehouseman enforce his warehousemans lien before delivering the sugar stocks as ordered by the Court of Appeals or need he file a separate action to enforce payment of storage fees?

The herein petition seeks to annul: (1) the Resolution of respondent Judge Benito C. Se, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 45, dated December 20, 1994, in Civil Case No. 90-53023, authorizing reception of evidence to establish the claim of respondents Noahs Ark Sugar Refinery, et al., for storage fees and preservation expenses over sugar stocks covered by five (5) Warehouse Receipts which is in the nature of a warehousemans lien; and (2) the Resolution of the said respondent Judge, dated March 1, 1995, declaring the validity of private respondents warehousemans lien under Section 27 of Republic Act No 2137 and ordering that execution of the Court of Appeals decision, dated December 13, 1991, be in effect held in abeyance until the full

amount of the warehousemans lien on the sugar stocks covered by five (5) quedans subject of the action shall have been satisfied conformably with the provisions of Section 31 of Republic Act 2137.

Also prayed for by the petition is a Writ of Prohibition to require respondent RTC Judge to desist from further proceeding with Civil Case No. 90-53023, except order the execution of the Supreme Court judgment; and a Writ of Mandamus to compel respondent RTC Judge to issue a Writ of Execution in accordance with the said executory Supreme Court decision.

THE FACTS

In accordance with Act No. 2137, the Warehouse Receipts Law, Noahs Ark Sugar Refinery issued on several dates, the following Warehouse Receipts (Quedans): (a) March 1, 1989, Receipt No. 18062, covering sugar deposited by Rosa Sy; (b) March 7, 1989, Receipt No. 18080, covering sugar deposited by RNS Merchandising (Rosa Ng Sy); (c) March 21, 1989, Receipt No. 18081, covering sugar deposited by St. Therese Merchandising; (d)March 31, 1989, Receipt No. 18086, covering sugar deposited by St. Therese Merchandising; and (e) April 1, 1989, Receipt No. 18087, covering sugar deposited by RNS Merchandising. The receipts are substantially in the form, and contains the terms, prescribed for negotiable warehouse receipts by Section 2 of the law.

Subsequently, Warehouse Receipts Nos. 18080 and 18081 were negotiated and endorsed to Luis T. Ramos; and Receipts Nos. 18086, 18087 and 18062 were negotiated and endorsed to Cresencia K. Zoleta. Ramos and Zoleta then used the quedans as security for two loan agreements - one for P15.6 million and the other for P23.5 million - obtained by them from the Philippine National Bank. The aforementioned quedans were endorsed by them to the Philippine National Bank.

Luis T. Ramos and Cresencia K. Zoleta failed to pay their loans upon maturity on January 9, 1990. Consequently, on March 16, 1990, the Philippine National Bank wrote to Noahs Ark Sugar Refinery demanding delivery of the sugar stocks covered by the quedans endorsed to it by Zoleta and Ramos. Noahs Ark Sugar Refinery refused to comply with the demand alleging ownership thereof, for which reason the Philippine National Bank filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila

a verified complaint for Specific Performance with Damages and Application for Writ of Attachment against Noahs Ark Sugar Refinery, Alberto T. Looyuko, Jimmy T. Go and Wilson T. Go, the last three being identified as the sole proprietor, managing partner, and Executive Vice President of Noahs Ark, respectively.

Respondent Judge Benito C. Se, Jr., in whose sala the case was raffled, denied the Application for Preliminary Attachment. Reconsideration therefor was likewise denied.

Noahs Ark and its co-defendants filed an Answer with Counterclaim and Third-Party Complaint in which they claimed that they are the owners of the subject quedans and the sugar represented therein, averring as they did that:

9.*** In an agreement dated April 1, 1989, defendants agreed to sell to Rosa Ng Sy of RNS Merchandising and Teresita Ng of St. Therese Merchandising the total volumeof sugar indicated in the quedans stored at Noahs Ark Sugar Refinery for a total consideration of P63,000,000.00,

*** The corresponding payments in the form of checks issued by the vendees in favor of defendants were subsequently dishonored by the drawee banks by reason of payment stopped and drawn against insufficient funds,

*** Upon proper notification to said vendees and plaintiff in due course, defendants refused to deliver to vendees therein the quantity of sugar covered by the subject quedans.

10. *** Considering that the vendees and first endorsers of subject quedans did not acquire ownership thereof, the subsequent endorsers and plaintiff itself did not acquire a better right of ownership than the original vendees/first endorsers. 1

The Answer incorporated a Third-Party Complaint by Alberto T. Looyuko, Jimmy T. Go and Wilson T. Go, doing business under the trade name and style Noahs Ark Sugar Refinery against Rosa Ng Sy and Teresita Ng, praying that the latter be ordered to deliver or return to them the quedans (previously endorsed to PNB and the subject of the suit) and pay damages and litigation expenses.

The Answer of Rosa Ng Sy and Teresita Ng, dated September 6, 1990, one of avoidance, is essentially to the effect that the transaction between them, on the one hand, and Jimmy T. Go, on the other,

concerning the quedans and the sugar stocks covered by them was merely a simulated one being part of the latters complex banking schemes and financial maneuvers, and thus, they are not answerable in damages to him.

On January 31, 1991, the Philippine National Bank filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of the plaintiff as against the defendants for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.

On May 2, 1991, the Regional Trial Court issued an order denying the Motion for Summary Judgment. Thereupon, the Philippine National Bank filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 25938 on December 13, 1991.

Pertinent portions of the decision of the Court of Appeals read:

In issuing the questioned Orders, the respondent Court ruled that questions of law should be resolved after and not before, the questions of fact are properly litigated. A scrutiny of defendants affirmative defenses does not show material questions of fact as to the alleged nonpayment of purchase price by the vendees/first endorsers, and which nonpayment is not disputed by PNB as it does not materially affect PNBs title to the sugar stocks as holder of the negotiable quedans.

What is determinative of the propriety of summary judgment is not the existence of conflicting claims from prior parties but whether from an examination of the pleadings, depositions, admissions and documents on file, the defenses as to the main issue do not tender material questions of fact (see Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, 167 SCRA 815) or the issues thus tendered are in fact sham, fictitious, contrived, set up in bad faith or so unsubstantial as not to constitute genuine issues for trial. (See Vergara vs. Suelto, et al., 156 SCRA 753; Mercado, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, 162 SCRA 75). The questioned Orders themselves do not specify what material facts are in issue. (See Sec. 4, Rule 34, Rules of Court).

To require a trial notwithstanding pertinent allegations of the pleadings and other facts appearing on the record, would constitute a waste of time and an injustice to the PNB whose rights to relief to which it is plainly entitled would be further delayed to its prejudice.

In issuing the questioned Orders, We find the respondent Court to have acted in grave abuse of discretion which justify holding null and void and setting aside the Orders dated May 2 and July 4, 1990 of respondent Court, and that a summary judgment be rendered forthwith in favor of the PNB against Noahs

Ark Sugar Refinery, et al., as prayed for in petitioners Motion for Summary Judgment.2

On December 13, 1991, the Court of Appeals nullified and set aside the orders of May 2 and July 4, 1990 of the Regional Trial Court and ordered the trial court to render summary judgment in favor of the PNB. On June 18, 1992, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint against private respondents for lack of cause of action and likewise dismissed private respondents counterclaim against PNB and of the Third-Party Complaint and the Third-Party Defendants Counterclaim. On September 4, 1992, the trial court denied PNBs Motion for Reconsideration.

On June 9, 1992, the PNB filed an appeal from the RTC decision with the Supreme Court, G.R. No. 107243, by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This Court rendered judgment on September 1, 1993, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the trial judges decision in Civil Case No. 90-53023, dated June 18, 1992, is reversed and set aside and a new one rendered conformably with the final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R SP. No. 25938, ordering the private respondents Noahs Ark Sugar Refinery, Alberto T. Looyuko, Jimmy T. Go and Wilson T. Go, jointly and severally:

(a) to deliver to the petitioner Philippine National Bank, the sugar stocks covered by the Warehouse Receipts/ Quedans which are now in the latters possession as holder for value and in due course; or alternatively, to pay (said) plaintiff actual damages in the amount of P39.1 million, with legal interest thereon from the filing of the complaint until full payment; and

(b) to pay plaintiff Philippine National Bank attorneys fees, litigation expenses and judicial costs hereby fixed at the amount of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) as well as the costs.

SO ORDERED.3

On September 29, 1993, private respondents moved for reconsideration of this decision. A Supplemental/Second Motion for Reconsideration with leave of court was filed by private respondents on November 8, 1993. We denied private respondents motion on January 10, 1994. .

Private respondents filed a Motion Seeking Clarification of the Decision, dated September 1, 1993. We denied this motion in this manner:

It bears stressing that the relief granted in this Courts decision of September 1, 1993 is precisely that set out in the final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 25938, dated December 13, 1991, which was affirmed in toto by this Court and which became unalterable upon becoming final and executory. 4

Private respondents thereupon filed before the trial court an Omnibus Motion seeking among others the deferment of the proceedings until private respondents are heard on their claim for warehousemans lien. On the other hand, on August 22, 1994, the Philippine National Bank filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution and an Opposition to the Omnibus Motion filed by private respondents.

The trial court granted private respondents Omnibus Motion on December 20, 1994 and set reception of evidence on their claim for warehousemans lien. The resolution of the PNBs Motion for Execution was ordered deferred until the determination of private respondents claim.

On February 21, 1995, private respondents claim for lien was heard and evidence was received in support thereof. The trial court thereafter gave both parties five (5) days to file respective memoranda.

On February 28, 1995, the Philippine National Bank filed a Manifestation with Urgent Motion to Nullify Court Proceedings. In adjudication thereof, the trial court issued the following order on March 1, 1995:

WHEREFORE, this court hereby finds that there exists in favor of the defendants a valid warehousemans lien under Section 27 of Republic Act 2137 and accordingly, execution of the judgment is hereby ordered stayed and/ or precluded until the full amount of defendants lien on the sugar stocks covered by the five (5) quedans subject of this action shall have been satisfied conformably with the provisions of Section 31 of Republic Act 2137. 5

Consequently, the Philippine National Bank filed the herein petition to seek the nullification of the above-assailed orders of respondent judge.

The PNB submits that:

I

PNBs RIGHT TO A WRIT OF EXECUTION IS SUPPORTED BY TWO FINAL AND EXECUTORY DECISIONS: THE DECEMBER 13, 1991 COURT OF APPEALS DECISION IN CA-G.R. SP. NO. 25938; AND, THE NOVEMBER 9, 1992 SUPREME COURT DECISION IN G.R NO. 107243. RESPONDENT RTCS MINISTERIAL AND MANDATORY DUTY IS TO ISSUE THE WRIT OF EXECUTION TO IMPLEMENT THE DECRETAL PORTION OF SAID SUPREME COURT DECISION

II

RESPONDENT RTC IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO HEAR PRIVATE RESPONDENTS OMNIBUS MOTION. THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN SAID MOTION: (1) WERE ALREADY REJECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS MARCH 9, 1994 RESOLUTION DENYING PRIVATE RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF DECISION IN .G.R. NO. 107243; AND (2) ARE BARRED FOREVER BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS FAILURE TO INTERPOSE THEM IN THEIR ANSWER, AND FAILURE TO APPEAL FROM THE JUNE 18, 1992 RTC DECISION IN CIVIL CASE NO. 90-52023

III

RESPONDENT RTCS ONLY JURISDICTION IS TO ISSUE THE WRIT TO EXECUTE THE SUPREME COURT DECISION. THUS, PNB IS ENTITLED TO: (1) A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO ANNUL THE RTC RESOLUTION DATED DECEMBER 20, 1994 AND THE ORDER DATED FEBRUARY 7, 1995 AND ALL PROCEEDINGS TAKEN BY THE RTC THEREAFTER; (2) A WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO PREVENT RESPONDENT RTC FROM FURTHER PROCEEDING WITH CIVIL CASE NO. 90-53023 AND COMMITTING OTHER ACTS VIOLATIVE OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN G.R. NO. 107243; AND (3) A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO COMPEL RESPONDENT RTC TO ISSUE THE WRIT TO EXECUTE THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PNB

The issues presented before us in this petition revolve around the legality of the questioned orders of respondent judge, issued as they were after we had denied with finality private respondents contention that the PNB could not compel them to deliver the stocks of sugar in their warehouse covered by the endorsed quedans or pay the value of the said stocks of sugar.

Petitioners submission is on a technicality, that is, that private respondents have lost their right to recover warehousemans lien on the sugar stocks covered by the five (5) Warehouse Receipts for the reason that they failed to set up said claim in their Answer before the trial court and that private respondents did not appeal from the decision in this regard, dated June 18, 1992. Petitioner asseverates that the denial by this Court on March 9, 1994 of the motion seeking clarification of our decision, dated September 1, 1993, has foreclosed private respondents right to enforce their warehousemans lien for storage fees and preservation expenses under the Warehouse Receipts Act.

On the other hand, private respondents maintain that they could not have claimed the right to a warehouseman s lien in their Answer to the complaint before the trial court as it would have been inconsistent with their stand that they claim ownership of the stocks covered by the quedans since the checks issued for payment thereof were dishonored. If they were still the owners, it would have been absurd for them to ask payment for storage fees and preservation expenses. They further contend that our resolution, dated March 9, 1994, denying their motion for clarification did not preclude their right to claim their warehousemans lien under Sections 27 and 31 of Republic Act 2137, as our resolution merely affirmed and adopted the earlier decision, dated December 13, 1991, of the Court of Appeals (6th Division) in CA-G.R. SP. No. 25938 and did not make any finding on the matter of the warehouseman s lien.

We find for private respondents on the foregoing issue and so the petition necessarily must fail.

We have carefully examined our resolution, dated March 9, 1994, which denied Noahs Arks motion for clarification of our decision, dated September 1, 1993, wherein we affirmed in full and adopted the Court of Appeals earlier decision, dated December 13, 1991, in CA-G.R. SP. No. 25938. We are not persuaded by the petitioners argument that our said resolution carried with it the denial of the warehousemans lien over the sugar stocks covered by the subject Warehouse Receipts. We have simply resolved and upheld in our decision, dated September 1, 1993, the propriety of summary judgment which was then assailed by private respondents. In effect, we ruled therein that, considering the circumstances obtaining before the trial court, the issuance of the Warehouse Receipts not being disputed by the private respondents, a summary judgment in favor of PNB was proper. We in effect further affirmed the finding that Noahs Ark is a warehouseman which was obliged to deliver the sugar stocks covered by the Warehouse Receipts

pledged by Cresencia K. Zoleta and Luis T. Ramos to the petitioner pursuant to the pertinent provisions of Republic Act 2137.

In disposing of the private respondents motion for clarification, we could not contemplate the matter of warehousemans lien because the issue to be finally resolved then was the claim of private respondents for retaining ownership of the stocks of sugar covered by the endorsed quedans. Stated otherwise, there was no point in taking up the issue of warehousemans lien since the matter of ownership was as yet being determined. Neither could storage fees be due then while no one has been declared the owner of the sugar stocks in question.

Of considerable relevance is the pertinent stipulation in the subject Warehouse Receipts which provides for respondent Noahs Arks right to impose and collect warehousemans lien:

Storage of the refined sugar quantities mentioned herein shall be free up to one (1) week from the date of the quedans covering said sugar and thereafter, storage fees shall be charged in accordance with the Refining Contract under which the refined sugar covered by this Quedan was produced. 6

It is not disputed, therefore, that, under the subject Warehouse Receipts provision, storage fees are chargeable.

Petitioner anchors its claim against private respondents on the five (5) Warehouse Receipts issued by the latter to third-party defendants Rosa Ng Sy of RNS Merchandising and Teresita Ng of St. Therese Merchandising, which found their way to petitioner after they were negotiated to them by Luis T. Ramos and Cresencia K. Zoleta for a loan of P39.1 Million. Accordingly, petitioner PNB is legally bound to stand by the express terms and conditions on the face of the Warehouse Receipts as to the payment of storage fees. Even in the absence of such a provision, law and equity dictate the payment of the warehouseman s lien pursuant to Sections 27 and 31 of the Warehouse Receipts Law (R.A. 2137), to wit:

SECTION 27. What claims are included in the warehousemans lien. - Subject to the provisions of section thirty, a warehouseman shall have lien on goods deposited or on the proceeds thereof in his hands, for all lawful charges for storage and preservation of the goods; also for all lawful claims for money advanced, interest, insurance, transportation, labor, weighing coopering and other charges and expenses in relation to such goods; also for all reasonable

charges and expenses for notice, and advertisement of sale, and for sale of the goods where default has been made in satisfying the warehousemans lien.

xxx xxx xxx

SECTION 31. Warehouseman need not deliver until lien is satisfied. - A warehouseman having a lien valid against the person demanding the goods may refuse to deliver the goods to him until the lien is satisfied.

After being declared not the owner, but the warehouseman, by the Court of Appeals on December 13, 1991 in CA-G.R. SP. No. 25938, the decision having been affirmed by us on December 1, 1993, private respondents cannot legally be deprived of their right to enforce their claim for warehousemans lien, for reasonable storage fees and preservation expenses. Pursuant to Section 31 which we quote hereunder, the goods under storage may not be delivered until said lien is satisfied.

SECTION 31. Warehouseman need not deliver until lien is satisfied. - A warehouseman having a lien valid against the person demanding the goods may refuse to deliver the goods to him until the lien is satisfied.

Considering that petitioner does not deny the existence, validity and genuineness of the Warehouse Receipts on which it anchors its claim for payment against private respondents, it cannot disclaim liability for the payment of the storage fees stipulated therein. As contracts, the receipts must be respected by authority of Article 1159 of the Civil Code, to wit:

ART. 1159. Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.

Petitioner is in estoppel in disclaiming liability for the payment of storage fees due the private respondents as warehouseman while claiming to be entitled to the sugar stocks covered by the subject Warehouse Receipts on the basis of which it anchors its claim for payment or delivery of the sugar stocks. The unconditional presentment of the receipts by the petitioner for payment against private respondents on the strength of the provisions of the Warehouse Receipts Law (R.A. 2137) carried with it the admission of the existence and validity of the terms, conditions and stipulations written on the face of the Warehouse Receipts, including the unqualified recognition of the payment of

warehousemans lien for storage fees and preservation expenses. Petitioner may not now retrieve the sugar stocks without paying the lien due private respondents as warehouseman.

In view of the foregoing, the rule may be simplified thus: While the PNB is entitled to the stocks of sugar as the endorsee of the quedans, delivery to it shall be effected only upon payment of the storage fees.

Imperative is the right of the warehouseman to demand payment of his lien at this juncture, because, in accordance with Section 29 of the Warehouse Receipts Law, the warehouseman loses his lien upon goods by surrendering possession thereof. In other words, the lien may be lost where the warehouseman surrenders the possession of the goods without requiring payment of his lien, because a warehousemans lien is possessory in nature.

We, therefore, uphold and sustain the validity of the assailed orders of public respondent, dated December 20, 1994 and March 1, 1995.

In fine, we fail to see any taint of abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent in issuing the questioned orders which recognized the legitimate right of Noahs Ark, after being declared as warehouseman, to recover storage fees before it would release to the PNB sugar stocks covered by the five (5) Warehouse Receipts. Our resolution, dated March 9, 1994, did not preclude private respondents unqualified right to establish its claim to recover storage fees which is recognized under Republic Act No. 2137. Neither did the Court of Appeals decision, dated December 13, 1991, restrict such right.

Our Resolutions reference to the decision by the Court of Appeals, dated December 13, 1991, in CA-G.R. SP. No. 25938, was intended to guide the parties in the subsequent disposition of the case to its final end. We certainly did not foreclose private respondents inherent right as warehouseman to collect storage fees and preservation expenses as stipulated n the face of each of the Warehouse Receipts and as provided for in the Warehouse Receipts Law (R.A. 2137).

WHEREFORE, the petition should be, as it is, hereby dismissed for lack of merit. The questioned orders issued by public respondent judge are affirmed.

Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.