University of Santo Tomas - Faculty of Civil Law

Case Digest in Torts and Damages – Atty. Mauricio Ulep

Class 3D (AY 2021 – 2022)

YHT REALTY CORPORATION, ERLINDA return to Tropicana was likewise missing,

LAINEZ and ANICIA PAYAM, Petitioners, v. except for a diamond bracelet. NOTES:
THE COURT OF APPEALS and MAURICE
McLOUGHLIN, Respondents. When McLoughlin came back to the
G.R. NO. 126780 : February 17, 2005| Philippines, he asked Lainez if some money
TINGA, J: and/or jewelry which he had lost were found
and returned to her or to the management.
FACTS Private respondent McLoughlin, an However, Lainez told him that no one in the
Australian businessman-philanthropist, used hotel found such things and none were turned
to stay at Sheraton Hotel during his trips to the over to the management.
Philippines when he met Tan. Tan befriended
McLoughlin and convinced him to transfer He again registered at Tropicana and rented a
from Sheraton Hotel to Tropicana where safety deposit box. He placed envelope
Lainez, Payam and Danilo Lopez were containing US$15,000.00 envelope containing
employed. Lopez served as manager of the AUS$10,000.00 and other envelopes containing
hotel while Lainez and Payam had custody of his traveling papers/documents.
the keys for the safety deposit boxes of
Tropicana. Tan took care of McLoughlin’s McLoughlin requested Lainez and Payam to
booking at the Tropicana where he started open his safety deposit box. He noticed that: in
staying during his trips to the Philippines. the envelope containing US$15,000, US$2,000
were missing and in the envelope previously
He rented a safety deposit box and is aware of containing AUS$10,000, AUS$4,500.00 were
the procedure observed by Tropicana relative missing.
to its safety deposit boxes; that it could only be
opened through the use of two keys, one of When McLoughlin discovered the loss, he
which is given to the registered guest, and the immediately confronted Lainez and Payam
other remaining in the possession of the who admitted that Tan opened the safety
management of the hotel. When a registered deposit box with the key assigned to him. Tan
guest wished to open his safety deposit box, he admitted that she had stolen McLoughlins key
alone could personally request the while he was asleep and was able to open the
management who then would assign one of its safety deposit box with the assistance of Lopez,
employees to accompany the guest and assist Payam and Lainez. McLoughlin requested the
him in opening the safety deposit box with the management for an investigation of the
two keys. incident, and Lopez wrote a promissory note.

McLoughlin allegedly placed the following in Despite the execution of promissory note by
his safety deposit box: Tan, McLoughlin insisted that it must be the
hotel who must assume responsibility for the
US$15,000.00 which he placed in two loss he suffered. However, Lopez refused to
envelopes envelope containing US$10,000.00, accept the responsibility relying on the
and the other envelope US$5,000.00 conditions for renting the safety deposit box
AUS$10,000.00 entitled Undertaking For the Use Of Safety
Deposit Box, specifically paragraphs (2) and
Australian dollars which he also placed in (4) thereof, to wit:
another envelope; 2 other envelopes
containing letters and credit cards; 2 2. To release and hold free and blameless
bankbooks; and a checkbook, arranged side by TROPICANA APARTMENT HOTEL from any
side inside the safety deposit box. liability arising from any loss in the contents
and/or use of the said deposit box for any
After returning to Manila, he checked out of cause whatsoever, including but not limited to
Tropicana and left for Australia. He then the presentation or use thereof by any other
discovered that: the envelope with person should the key be lost;
US$10,000.00 was short of US$5,000 the
jewelry which he bought in Hongkong and 4. To return the key and execute the RELEASE
stored in the safety deposit box upon his in favor of TROPICANA APARTMENT HOTEL
upon giving up the use of the box.
1
 University of Santo Tomas - Faculty of Civil Law
Case Digest in Torts and Damages – Atty. Mauricio Ulep
Class 3D (AY 2021 – 2022)

McLoughlin went back to Australia and he management. Payam and Lainez allowed Tan
consulted his lawyers, and they opined that the to use the master key without authority from NOTES:
stipulations are void for being violative of McLoughlin. The trial court added that if
universal hotel practices and customs. His McLoughlin had not lost his dollars, he would
lawyers prepared a letter which was sent to not have gone through the trouble and
the Office of the President, Corazon Aquino. personal inconvenience of seeking aid and
The Office referred the letter to the DOJ which assistance from the Office of the President, DOJ,
forwarded the same to the Western Police police authorities and the City Fiscals Office in
District (WPD). his desire to recover his losses from the hotel
management and Tan.
After receiving a copy of the indorsement in
Australia, McLoughlin came to the Philippines As regards the loss of US$7,000.00 and jewelry
and went to Malacaň ang to follow up on his worth approximately US$1,200.00, no claim
letter but he was instructed to go to the DOJ. was made by McLoughlin for such losses
The DOJ directed him to proceed to the WPD because he was not sure how they were lost
for documentation, but McLoughlin went back and who the responsible persons were. But
to Australia as he had an urgent business considering the admission of the defendants
matter to attend to. that they allowed Tan to open the box, the trial
court opined that it was logical and reasonable
Upon his return to the Philippines, the WPD to presume that his personal assets jewelry
conducted an investigation which resulted in were taken by Tan from the safety deposit box
the preparation of an affidavit forwarded to without McLoughlins consent through the
the Manila City Fiscals Office. Said affidavit cooperation of Payam and Lainez.
became the basis of preliminary investigation
but McLoughlin left again for Australia without The trial court also found that defendants
receiving the notice of the hearing. Thus, the acted with gross negligence in the performance
case at the Fiscals Office was dismissed for and exercise of their duties and obligations as
failure to prosecute. Mcloughlin requested the innkeepers and were therefore liable to
reinstatement of the criminal charge for theft. answer for the losses incurred by McLoughlin.
In the meantime, McLoughlin and his lawyers
wrote letters of demand to those having CA: Affirmed the disquisitions made by the
responsibility to pay the damage. lower court except as to the amount of
damages awarded.
Meetings were held between McLoughlin and
his lawyer which resulted to the filing of a ISSUE: 1. Whether the finding of gross
complaint for damages against YHT Realty negligence on the part of petitioners in the
Corporation, Lopez, Lainez, Payam and Tan performance of their duties as innkeepers is
(defendants) for the loss of McLoughlin’s supported by the evidence on record;
money.
2. Whether the damages awarded to private
During the trial of the case, McLoughlin had respondent, as well as the amounts thereof, are
been in and out of the country to attend to proper under the circumstances.
urgent business in Australia, and while staying
in the Philippines to attend the hearing, he RULING: 1. YES.
incurred expenses for hotel bills, airfare and
other transportation expenses, long distance
Yes. The evidence reveals that two keys are
calls to Australia, Meralco power expenses, and
required to open the safety deposit boxes of
expenses for food and maintenance, among
Tropicana.
others.
One key is assigned to the guest while the
RTC: Rendered judgment in favor of other remains in the possession of the
McLoughlin. It was established that management. If the guest desires to open his
McLoughlins money, kept in Tropicana’s safety safety deposit box, he must request the
deposit box, was taken by Tan without management for the other key to open the
McLoughlins consent, through the use of the same. In other words, the guest alone cannot
master key which was in the possession of the open the safety deposit box without the
2
 University of Santo Tomas - Faculty of Civil Law
Case Digest in Torts and Damages – Atty. Mauricio Ulep
Class 3D (AY 2021 – 2022)

assistance of the management or its taking care of McLoughlins safety deposit box,
employees. With more reason that access to they should have confronted him as to his NOTES:
the safety deposit box should be denied if the relationship with Tan considering that the
one requesting for the opening of the safety latter had been observed opening McLoughlins
deposit box is a stranger. Thus, in case of loss safety deposit box a number of times at the
of any item deposited in the safety deposit box, early hours of the morning. Tans acts should
it is inevitable to conclude that the have prompted the management to investigate
management had at least a hand in the her relationship with McLoughlin. Then,
consummation of the taking, unless the reason petitioners would have exercised due diligence
for the loss is force majeure. required of them. Failure to do so warrants the
conclusion that the management had been
Noteworthy is the fact that Payam and Lainez, remiss in complying with the obligations
who were employees of Tropicana, had imposed upon hotel-keepers under the law.
custody of the master key of the management
when the loss took place. In fact, they even Under Article 1170 of the New Civil Code,
admitted that they assisted Tan on three those who, in the performance of their
separate occasions in opening McLoughlins obligations, are guilty of negligence, are liable
safety deposit box. This only proves that for damages. As to who shall bear the burden
Tropicana had prior knowledge that a person of paying damages, Article 2180, paragraph (4)
aside from the registered guest had access to of the same Code provides that the owners and
the safety deposit box. Yet the management managers of an establishment or enterprise
failed to notify McLoughlin of the incident and are likewise responsible for damages caused
waited for him to discover the taking before it by their employees in the service of the
disclosed the matter to him. Therefore, branches in which the latter are employed or
Tropicana should be held responsible for the on the occasion of their functions. Also, this
damage suffered by McLoughlin by reason of Court has ruled that if an employee is found
the negligence of its employees. negligent, it is presumed that the employer
was negligent in selecting and/or supervising
The management should have guarded against him for it is hard for the victim to prove the
the occurrence of this incident considering that negligence of such employer. Thus, given the
Payam admitted in open court that she assisted fact that the loss of McLoughlins money was
Tan three times in opening the safety deposit consummated through the negligence of
box of McLoughlin at around 6:30 A.M. to 7:30 Tropicanas employees in allowing Tan to open
A.M. while the latter was still asleep. In light of the safety deposit box without the guests
the circumstances surrounding this case, it is consent, both the assisting employees and YHT
undeniable that without the acquiescence of Realty Corporation itself, as owner and
the employees of Tropicana to the opening of operator of Tropicana, should be held
the safety deposit box, the loss of McLoughlins solidarily liable pursuant to Article 2193.
money could and should have been avoided.
2. YES. It is within the province of lower courts
The management contends, however, that to settle factual issues such as the proper
McLoughlin, by his act, made its employees amount of damages awarded and such finding
believe that Tan was his spouse for she was is binding upon this Court especially if
always with him most of the time. The sufficiently proven by evidence and not
evidence on record, however, is bereft of any unconscionable or excessive.
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
3