January 12, 2011
Ponente: Nachura, J.
FACTS:
·
On April 30, 2002, Jeffrey See arrived and
checked in at the City Garden Hotel in Makati corner Kalayaan Avenues, Makati
City before midnight. The hotel's parking attendant, Vicente Justimbaste, got
the key to See's Suzuki Grand Vitara and parked the said vehicle at the parking
area of Equitable PCI Bank along Makati Avenue, right across the hotel.
·
At about 1 a.m. the next day, See was awakened
in his room by a telephone call from the Hotel Chief Security Officer who
informed him that his Vitara was carnapped while it was parked unattended. See
went to see the Hotel Chief Security Officer and later reported the incident to
the Operations Division of the Makati City Police Anti-Carnapping Unit.
·
Subsequently, See filed a complaint with the
PNP Traffic Management Group in Camp Crame, Quezon City. He alleged that: (a)
no necessary precautions were taken to prevent the carnapping incident from happening;
(b) that Durban Apartments was wanting in due diligence in the selection and
supervision of its employees particularly Justimbaste; and (c) Justimbaste and
Durban Apartments failed and refused to pay his valid, just, and lawful claim
despite written demands. Durban Apartment and Justimbaste denied the
allegations.
·
In the meantime, Pioneer Insurance paid See
the sum of P1,163,250.00 representing the cost of the stolen car. Theareafter,
by right of subrogation, Pioneer Insurance filed a complaint for recovery of
damages against Durban Apartments and Justimbaste before the Makati RTC.
·
During the pre-trial conference on November
28, 2003, counsel for Pioneer Insurance was present. The counsel of Durban
Apartments and Justimbaste was absent, instead, a certain Atty. Nestor Mejia
appeared for Durban Apartments and Justimbaste, but did NOT file their
pre-trial brief. As a result, the RTC allowed Pioneer Insurance to present its
evidence ex parte before the Branch
Clerk of Court.
·
RTC: Durban Apartments is ordered to pay the
sum of P1,163,250.00 with legal interest thereon from July 22, 2003 until the
obligation is fully paid and attorneys fees and litigation expenses amounting
to P120,000.00.
·
CA: RTC affirmed in toto.
·
Hence, the instant petition.
RULING:
Whether
the RTC erred in allowing Pioneer Insurance to present evidence ex-parte on account of the failure of
the counsel of Durban Apartments and Justimbaste to file a pre-trial brief. –
NO.
·
Durban Apartments was in default for failure
to appear at the pre-trial conference and to file a pre-trial brief. Therefore,
the RTC correctly allowed Pioner Insurance to present evidence ex-parte.
·
Appearance of parties and their counsel at the
pre-trial conference, along with the filing of a corresponding pre-trial brief,
is mandatory, nay, their duty pursuant to Sections 4 and 6 of Rule 18 of the
ROC.
·
In the present case, the absence of the
counsel of Durban Apartments is inexcusable because it does not fall within the
two exceptions for a valid non-appearance; there was neither (a) a valid excuse
nor (b) appearance of a representative on behalf of a party who is fully
authorized in writing to enter into an amicable settlement, to submit to
alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into stipulations or
admissions of facts and documents..
Whether
the RTC and CA erred in holding Durban Apartments liable for the loss of See's
vehicle. – NO.
·
Despite the fact that Durban Apartments was
not able to present evidence during the trial, this did NOT automatically
result in a judgment in favor of Pioneer Insurance. In fact, Pioneer was still
obliged to substantiate the allegations in its complaint.
·
In this case, Pioneer Insurance substantiated
the allegations in its complaint that a
contract of necessary deposit
existed between the insured See and Durban Apartments.
·
From the facts found by the lower courts, the insured
See deposited his vehicle for safekeeping with Durban Apartments, through the
latter's 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.
·
Article 1962, in relation to Article 1998, of
the Civil Code defines a contract of deposit and a necessary deposit made by
persons in hotels or inns.
·
Art. 1962.
A deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a thing belonging to
another, with the obligation of 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.
·
Art.
1998. The deposit of effects made by 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 hotel-keepers or their
substitutes advised relative to the care and vigilance of their effects.
·
Given the facts established in
court, Durban Apartments is liable for the loss of See’s vehicle.