FACTS: Private Respondent was an Australian businessman-philanthropist who stayed in a Suites owned by the Petitioner. The Private Respondent rented a safety deposit box with the said Suite. In Renting the box, he was asked to sign a waiver “Undertaking For The Use of Safety Deposit Box” exonerating the Hotel, its Management and Employees from liability in case of loss of the item in the box. The companion of the respondent Tan, while the latter was sleeping with the assistance of the staff of the Hotel, was allowed to open the depositary box of Respondent. When the respondent opened the box, he noticed in a number of occasion that the money he placed in the box was either missing or lacking. When he confronted the Management of the hotel, the latter advised that it was his companion Tan who opened the box.
The respondent went to the RTC and filed a complaint against the Petitioner. In the RTC, the Petitioner contented that the waiver signed by the Respondent exonerate them from liabilities. the RTC found the Management of the Hotel negligent for allowing a third person to open the box which the Respondent rented from them. The RTC found the Hotel and its staff liable for the actual and Moral damages for the Respondent lost item.
Petitioner went to CA to contest the decision. However, the CA agreed with the decision of the RTC and dismissed the petition. Hence, the Petitioner elevated the issue to the SC.
ISSUE: Whether the “Undertaking For The Use of Safety Deposit Box” executed by the Private Respondent exonerating the hotel from liability is valid?
RULING: No. Article 2003 of the Civil Code states, “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 is suppressed or diminished shall be void. Art. 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 carrier’s 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.
Here, 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. 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. It is the loss through force 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.
