Scribd
Upload
9 views2 pages

Durban Apartments Corp. v. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp.

In the case of Durban Apartments Corp. v. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp., the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decision that Durban Apartments is liable for the loss of Jeffrey See's vehicle, which was entrusted to their employee, Justimbaste, for safekeeping. The court ruled that a contract of deposit was perfected when See handed over the keys, obligating the hotel to safely keep and return the vehicle. The hotel was found lacking in due diligence regarding employee supervision, leading to the vehicle's theft.

Uploaded by

GenghisKel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
9 views2 pages

Durban Apartments Corp. v. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp.

In the case of Durban Apartments Corp. v. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp., the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decision that Durban Apartments is liable for the loss of Jeffrey See's vehicle, which was entrusted to their employee, Justimbaste, for safekeeping. The court ruled that a contract of deposit was perfected when See handed over the keys, obligating the hotel to safely keep and return the vehicle. The hotel was found lacking in due diligence regarding employee supervision, leading to the vehicle's theft.

Uploaded by

GenghisKel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Durban Apartments Corp. v. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp.

G.R. No. 179419

FACTS:

Respondent Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation, the insurer for loss
and damage of Jeffrey See’s Suzuki Grand Vitara, by right of subrogation,
filed a Complaint for Recovery of Damages against petitioner Durban
Apartments Corporation or the City Garden Hotel, and defendant Justimbaste
who is an employee of the said hotel.

See arrived and checked in at the City Garden Hotel in Makati City before
midnight. See gave notice to the doorman and parking attendant,
Justimbaste, about his Vitara entrusting to him its ignition key. Justimbaste
then issued a valet parking customer claim stub to See and parked the Vitara
at the Equitable PCI Bank parking area, and placed the ignition key inside a
safety key box.

Later, the Hotel Chief Security Officer informed See that his Vitara was
carnapped at the parking area of Equitable PCI Bank, which prompted them
to report the incident to the Makati City Police Anti-Carnapping Unit who in
turn investigated the Hotel Security Officer and Justimbaste. Upon
investigation, it was found that this was the second time that a similar
incident of carnapping happened in the valet parking service of petitioner
Durban Apartments and Justimbaste. Durban Apartments was wanting in due
diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees. It likewise
refused to pay the lawful claim despite written demands.

The case was brought to the trial court where it rendered a decision in favor
of the respondent Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation, ordering
petitioner Durban Apartments Corporation to pay solely the respondent’s
claim. The appellate court AFFIRMED the Decision of the trial court. Hence,
the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the contract of deposit was perfected between See and
Justimbaste thereby making its employer, petitioner Durban Apartments,
liable for the loss of See’s vehicle.

RULING:

The SC AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Under Article 1962:


“A deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a
thing belonging to another with the obligation to safely keeping it
and returning the same. If the safekeeping of the thing delivered
is not the principal purpose of the contract, there is no deposit but
some other contract.”
From the facts found by the lower courts, the insured, See, deposited his
vehicle for safekeeping with petitioner, through its employee, Justimbaste. In
turn, Justimbaste issued a claim stub to See. Thus, the contract of deposit
was perfected from See’s delivery, when he handed over to Justimbaste the
keys to his vehicle, which Justimbaste received with the obligation of safely
keeping and returning it. Hence, the petitioner is liable for the loss of See’s
vehicle.

You might also like