Dear Pao
My husband stayed in a relatively well-known inn when he visited a company project in the province. Unfortunately, my husband’s wallet, wedding ring and necklace were stolen. He placed them in the safety box inside his room before he slept. After he woke up, he went to have his buffet breakfast first, then came back to his room to shower and prepare for the site visit. When he opened the safety box, his belongings were no longer there. He was certain that he placed them there and locked his room before leaving for breakfast. His key card was also with him. The occupant of the room next to his told him that she may have seen a cleaning personnel enter my husband’s room; so, my husband thinks that it might have been an “inside job.” He will follow up on the report that he made before the police, but he is wondering if the inn has any liability whatsoever. The representative of the inn insists that they will not pay for the stolen items because my husband signed a guest waiver for losses during his stay at the inn. Is that waiver valid?
Anette
Dear Anette,
The New Civil Code of the Philippines mandates keepers of hotels and inns to provide a degree of safety and protection for their guests, and such provision extends to the personal effects brought in or introduced by the latter. Corollary, hotels and innkeepers are held responsible for any loss or injury to their guests, whether it be committed by their employees or strangers, except when it is by reason of force majeure. Articles 1998 and 2000 of the Code explicitly state:
“Art. 1998. The deposit of effects made by the travelers in hotels or inns shall also be regarded as necessary. The keepers of hotels or inns shall be responsible for them as depositaries, provided that notice was given to them, or to their employees, of the effects brought by the guests and that, on the part of the latter, they take the precautions which said hotelkeepers or their substitutes advised relative to the care and vigilance of their effects. x x x
“Art. 2000. The responsibility referred to in the two preceding articles shall include the loss of, or injury to the personal property of the guests caused by the servants or employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well as strangers; but not that which may proceed from any force majeure. The fact that travelers are constrained to rely on the vigilance of the keeper of the hotels or inns shall be considered in determining the degree of care required of him.”
Considering that there appeared to be no force majeure at the time the personal belongings of your husband were lost/stolen, we submit that he may pursue seeking an investigation relating thereto and file a claim if there is sufficient evidence to establish laxity or neglect on the part of the innkeeper. This holds true even if your husband signs a supposed waiver of liability for losses that may occur inside the establishment, as such a waiver is considered invalid under the law. Article 2003 of the Code clearly provides:
“Art. 2003. The hotelkeeper 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 hotelkeeper and the guest whereby the responsibility of the former as set forth in articles 1998 to 2001 is suppressed or diminished shall be void.”
In one case, the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Dante Tinga, also clarified:
“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 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. x x x
“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 hotelkeeper 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 hotelkeeper 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.” (YHT Realty Corp., Erlinda Lainez and Anicia Payam v Court of Appeals and Maurice McLoughlin, GR 126780, Feb. 17, 2005)
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net.
