Commercial Laws 1: Deposit — Chapter 3: Necessary Deposit

TITLE XII

DEPOSIT

CHAPTER 3

Necessary Deposit

Article 1996. 

A deposit is necessary:
(1) When it is made in compliance with a legal obligation;
(2) When it takes place on the occasion of any calamity, 

such as fire, storm, flood, pillage, shipwreck, or other similar events.

Article 1997. 

The deposit referred to in No. 1 of the preceding article 

shall be governed by the provisions of the law establishing it, 

and in case of its deficiency, by the rules on voluntary deposit.

The deposit mentioned in No. 2 of the preceding article 

shall be regulated by the provisions concerning voluntary deposit and by article 2168.

 

 
Article 1998. 

The deposit of effects made by travellers 

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.

 

 
Article 1999. 

The hotel-keeper is liable for the vehicles, animals and articles 

which have been introduced or placed 

in the annexes of the hotel.

 
Article 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 travellers 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.

 
Article 2001. 

The act of a thief or robber, 

who has entered the hotel

is not deemed force majeure, 

unless it is done with the use of arms or through an irresistible force.

 

 
Article 2002. 

The hotel-keeper is not liable for compensation

if the loss is due to the acts of the guest, his family, servants or visitors,

or if the loss arises from the character of the things brought into the hotel.

Article 2003. 

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.

Article 2004. 

The hotel-keeper has a right to retain

the things brought into the hotel by the guest, 

as a security for credits 

on account of lodging, 

and supplies usually furnished to hotel guests.

1. Necessary Deposit

• A deposit is necessary:

1. When it is made in compliance with a legal obligation, as in the case provided for under Article 2104 of the New Civil Code;
2. When it takes place on the occasion of any calamity, such as fire, storm, flood, pillage, shipwreck, or other similar events;
3. Deposit of effects made by the travellers in hotels or inns; 
4. Vehicles, animals and articles which have been introduced or placed in the annexes of the hotel.

1.01. Common Carriers. 

• There are those who consider the responsibility under Article 1754 of the New Civil Code as one based on necessary deposit. 
• Article 1754 provides that "the provisions of Articles 1733 to 1753 shall apply to the passenger's baggage which is not in his personal custody or in that of his employee."
• As to other baggage, the rules in Articles 1998 and 2000 to 2003 concerning the responsibility of hotelkeepers shall be applicable. 
• However, it is believed that the contract remains to be a contract of carrier. 
• Hence, the duty to exercise extraordinary diligence and the presumption of negligence applies even for hand-carried luggage. 
• The fact that rules on necessary deposit apply with respect to hand carried baggage does not mean that the carrier is relieved from its duties as a common carrier. 
• As applied to common carriers, Articles 1998, 2000 to 2003 of the New Civil Code merely impose additional duties and obligations on the part of the parties and identify when certain defenses are available to the carrier.  
• Sulpicio Lines v. Sesante:
• The Supreme Court ruled that absence of notice about the personal belongings of the passenger will not excuse the carrier from its liability for the loss of personal belongings.
• In this case, a passenger of a vessel lost his personal belongings consisting of money, jewelry, important documents, police uniforms and the .45 caliber pistol issued to him by the Philippine National Police. 
• The carrier denied liability because the passenger's belongings had remained in his custody all throughout the voyage until the sinking, and he had not notified the carrier or its employees about such belongings. The carrier claimed that absent such notice, liability did not attach to the carrier. 
• The Court ruled that the carrier is still liable. 
• The rule that the common carrier is always responsible for the passenger's baggage during the voyage needs to be emphasized.
• Article 1754 of the Civil Code does not exempt the common carrier from liability in case of loss, but only highlights the degree of care required of it depending on who has the custody of the belongings. 
• Hence, the law requires the common carrier to observe the same diligence as the hotelkeepers in case the baggage remains with the passenger; otherwise, extraordinary diligence must be exercised.
• Furthermore, the liability of the common carrier attaches even if the loss or damage to the belongings resulted from the acts of the common carrier's employees, the only exception being where such loss or damages is due to force majeure."

1.02 Necessary deposit in compliance with a legal obligation. 

• The following are examples of such deposit: 

1. The judicial deposit of a thing the possession of which is being disputed in a litigation by two or more persons (Art. 538.);
2. The deposit with a bank or public institution of public bonds or instruments of credit payable to order or bearer given in usufruct when the usufructuary does not give proper security for their conservation (Art. 586.);
3. The deposit of a thing pledged when the creditor uses the same without the authority of the owner or misuses it in any other way (Art. 2104.); 
4. Those required in suits as provided in the Rules of Court; and 
5. Those constituted to guarantee contracts with the government. 
• In this last case, the deposit arises from an obligation of public or administrative character. 

• A deposit made in compliance with law is governed primarily by the provisions of such law, and in default thereof, by the rules on voluntary deposit. (Art. 1997, par. 1.)

1.03 Necessary deposit made on the occasion of any calamity.

• Deposit created by accident or fortuitous event.  
• In this type of necessary deposit, the possession of movable property passes from one person to another by accident or fortuitously through force of circumstances and which the law imposes on the recipient the obligations of a bailee. 
• Here, the more immediate object is to save the property rather than its safekeeping.
• Example:
• If X saves Y’s television set in a fire, X is supposed to be its depositary. 
• Such a quasi-bailment is ordinarily distinguished by the name involuntary bailment or involuntary deposit.
• There must be a causal relation between the calamity and the constitution of the deposit. 
• Another name given to it is “deposito miserable.”

• Governing rules.
• Aside from the provisions concerning voluntary deposit, this kind shall be governed by Article 2168 (Art. 1997, par. 2.) which reads: “When during a fi re, fl ood, storm or other calamity, property is saved from destruction by another person without the knowledge of the owner, the latter is bound to pay the former just compensation.” 
• Article 2168 establishes a quasi-contract. 

2. Hotels and Family. 

• 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 the following obligations of the guests are complied with:

1. Notice was given by the guests to the keepers of hotels or inns, or to their employees, of the effects brought by the guests; and 
2. The guests should take the precautions which said hotelkeepers or their substitutes advised relative to the care and vigilance of their effects. 

• Extent of liability of keepers of hotels and inns.
• The liability is not limited to effects lost or damaged in the hotel rooms which come under the term “baggage” or articles such as clothing as are ordinarily used by travellers but include those lost or damaged in hotel annexes such as vehicles in the hotel’s garage. 
• The responsibility imposed extends to all those who offer lodging for a compensation, whatever may be their character.

• Terms explained.

• The words “travellers” and “guests,” as used by law, are synonymous. It refers to transients and not to boarders. 
• Non-transients are governed by the rules on lease.
• The terms “hotel-keeper” and “inn-keeper” are also synonymous.
1. Hotel.
• It is a building of many rooms chiefly for overnight accommodation of transients and several floors served by elevators, usually with a large open street-level lobby containing easy chairs, with a variety of compartments for eating, drinking, dancing, exhibitions, and group meetings, with shops having both inside and street-side entrances and offering for sale items of particular interest to a traveller, or providing personal services, and with telephone booths, writing tables, and wash rooms freely available.
2. Inn.
• It is a public house for the lodging of travellers for compensation and until capacity is reached; a place of public entertainment that does not provide lodging.
3. Motel. 
• It is an establishment which provides lodging and parking and in which the rooms are usually accessible from an outdoor parking area.

2.01. Vehicles. 

• The hotelkeeper is liable for the vehicles, animals and articles which have been introduced or placed in the annexes of the hotel.
• Durban Apartments Corp. v. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp.:
• The guest deposited his vehicle for safekeeping with petitioner (the operator of a hotel), through the latter's employee, a parking attendant. In turn, the employee issued a claim valet parking stub to the guest and informed the latter that the vehicle would be parked in front of the hotel. Thereafter the guest checked in at the said hotel. Later, the guest was informed that the vehicle was carnapped while it was parked at the parking lot. 
• The Court ruled that the contract of deposit was perfected from the time of delivery by the guest of the keys to the employee. The vehicle was received with the obligation of safely keeping and returning it. Ultimately, petitioner is liable for the loss of the guest's vehicle. 

3. Acts of Servants and Employees.

• The hotel or inn-keepers shall be liable for 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.
• Thief and Robber.
• The act of a thief or robber, who has entered the hotel, is not deemed force majeure. 
• The exception to this rule is when the act of a thief or robber is done with the use of arms or through an irresistible force.
• Under this exception, the act of a thief or robber is a defense that the depositary can raise to be free from liability.

• When hotel-keeper liable.
• In the following cases, the hotel-keeper is liable regardless of the amount of care exercised:
1. The loss or injury is caused by his servants or employees as well as by strangers provided that notice has been given and proper precautions taken; and
2. The loss is caused by the act of a thief or robber done without the use of arms and irresistible force for in this case, the hotel-keeper is apparently negligent. 

• When hotel-keeper not liable. 
• The hotel keeper is not liable in the following cases: 
1. The loss or injury is caused by force majeure, like flood, fire, theft or robbery by a stranger (not by hotel keeper’s servant or employee) with the use of arms or irresistible force, etc., unless he is guilty of fault or negligence in failing to provide against the loss or injury from his cause;
2. The loss is due to the acts of the guests, his family, servants, or visitors; and
3. The loss arises from the character of the things brought into the hotel.

4. Acts of Guests.

• The hotelkeeper is not liable for compensation if the loss is: 

1. due to the acts of the guest, his family, servants or visitors, or 
2. if the loss arises from the character of the things brought into the hotel.

5. Prohibited Acts.

• 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 is suppressed or diminished shall be void.
• The reason for this is that the hotel business is imbued with public interest. 
• YHT Realty Corporation v. Court of Appeals:
• Catering to the public, hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodgings 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.
• Thus, the hotelkeeper is liable even if it made its guest sign an "Undertaking" to release and hold free and blameless the hotelkeeper from any liability from any loss of the deposit box where the properties of the guest were kept (the contents of which were taken by unauthorized persons).

Exemption or diminution of liability. 

• The rule in this article is similar to the rule on common carriers which does not allow a common carrier to dispense with or limit his responsibility by stipulation or by posting of notices.
• Such stipulation is deemed contrary to law, morals, and public policy. 
• Hotel-keepers and inn-keepers in offering their accommodations to the public, practically volunteer as depositaries, and as such, they should be subject to an extraordinary degree of responsibility for the protection and safety of travellers who have no alternative but rely on the good faith and care of those with whom they take lodging.
• Furthermore, inn-keepers, by the very nature of their business, have supervision and control of their inns and the premises thereof. 
• As a matter of fact, authorities are to the effect that it is not necessary in order to hold an inn-keeper liable that the effects of the guests be actually delivered to him or his employees; it is enough that they are within the inn.

6. Right of Retention.

• The hotelkeeper has a right to retain the things brought into the hotel by the guest, as a security for credits on account of lodging, and supplies usually furnished to hotel guests.
• The right of retention recognized in this article is in the nature of a pledge created by operation of law. 
• It is given to hotel-keepers to compensate them for the liabilities imposed upon them by law. 
• The bailee in commodatum may likewise retain the thing loaned for damages by reason of defects thereof
• Incidentally, the act of obtaining food or accommodation in a hotel or inn without paying therefor constitutes estafa. (Arts. 315, Sec. 2[e], Revised Penal Code.)