Triple-V Held Liable for Loss of Valet-Parked Car

[the_wildthing]

March 11, 2005

Food chain owner Triple-V Food Services, Inc. was recently found liable for the loss of a car entrusted to the valet parking service of one of its restaurants.

In a seven-page resolution, the Supreme Court’s Third Division denied due course to Triple-V’s petition and held it responsible for the loss of a Mitsubishi Galant car deposited by one Mary Jo-Anne De Asis with the valet parking service of Kamayan restaurant on West Avenue, Quezon City.

The Court said Triple-V cannot evade liability by claiming that availing of its free valet parking service did not give rise to a contract of deposit or insurance for the safety of the car. “When De Asis entrusted the car to the restaurant’s valet attendant, she expected the car’s safe return at the end of her meal. Thus, petitioner was constituted as a depositary of the same car,” the Court said.

The Court brushed aside Triple-V’s claim that under the terms of the valet parking claim stub, the restaurant was relieved from responsibility for any loss or damage to the vehicle and that by availing of the service, De Asis had waived her right to claim indemnity. The Court pointed out that the parking claim stub was a contract of adhesion prepared by the company with no participation from customers, who merely adhered to the stipulations. Triple-V could not be allowed to use this stipulation as a shield from liability, it said.

The Court added, “[w]hile contracts of adhesion are not void in themselves, yet this Court will not hesitate to rule out blind adherence thereto if they prove to be one-sided under the attendant facts and circumstances.”

The Court also said that the free valet service was part of the restaurant’s enticement for customers since it assured them that their vehicles would be safely kept within the restaurant’s vicinity, rather than parked elsewhere at their own risk. Having then entrusted the car to Triple-V’s valet attendant, De Asis, like all of the restaurant’s customers, fully expected the security of her car while in the designated parking area and its safe return at the end of her visit, the Court stressed.

The controversy stemmed from a case for damages filed with the Makati Regional Trial Court by the Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc. against Triple-V. FMICI filed the suit after it paid the car insurance claims of Crispa Textile, Inc., owner of the vehicle and De Asis’ employer. The trial court ruled in FMICI’s favor, which ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. (GR No. 160544, Triple-V Food Services, Inc. v. Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc., February 21, 2005)


by Janice R. Erni

Source: www.supremecourt.gov.ph

[zechs]

right desicion by the court. di ko nga alam bakit sa mga parking tickets laging nakalagay na "our company will not be held liable if any loss/damage happens to the car while parked at our premises". kaya nga pinapark mo dun para safe eh..tapos ganun nakalagay? and thats a hotel im referring to. thats a

[boybi]

this ruling will set a precedent for all valet parking services. will this be the same kaya sa mga mall parkings? nakalagay din kasi sa parking ticket that the establishment will not be held liable for loss or damage to the cars while parked inside their premises.

[OTEP]

Though the loss of a vehicle is not good news, at least those who lost the vehicle were held responsible.

As for me, I never hand the keys over to the valet.

Most of them won't even know how to shift a W123 into reverse.

[ILuvDetailing]

Triple-V’s claim that under the terms of the valet parking claim stub, the restaurant was relieved from responsibility for any loss or damage to the vehicle and that by availing of the service, De Asis had waived her right to claim indemnity.

Kala ayaw ko din mag pavalet, baka mawala mga gamit ko sa loob, ano dadalhin ko sa loob ng resto mga gamit ko? There should be a law for this, we as customers should be given more protection.

[OTEP]

Yung father ko pina-valet yung Montero niya. Anak ng patola pati pirated na DVD sa back seat hindi pinatawad!

[squala]

Basta don't leave any stuff that will trigger theft inside your car.

[scarab]

this ruling will set a precedent for all valet parking services. will this be the same kaya sa mga mall parkings? nakalagay din kasi sa parking ticket that the establishment will not be held liable for loss or damage to the cars while parked inside their premises.

...not held liable even if u paid a big sum of money to use their parking space. tsk tsk tsk...

[falken]

Once lang ako nagpa valet parking, sa may century park sheraton, emergency kasi, comfort room emergency. pagnaghanap pa ako ng parking space malamang mabaho na car ko.

[mazdamazda]

no bad experience pa naman with valet parking...

kudos to the SC for being pro-consumer.

[aces_fan]

kaya nga tayo nagbabayad sa kanila para safe ang sasakyan natin, tapos not liable pa sila.. tsk tsk

[nugundam93]

good work to the SC.

now if we could only apply that to those fricking malls...

[the_wildthing]

good work to the SC.

now if we could only apply that to those fricking malls...

Technically it should. Kaya lang papaabutin mo pa sa korte to get some relief. (Unless SC overturns itself. )

[zechs]

yeah i believe nakasulat na the mall is "not liable" to any loss/damage done to the car. iniisip ko naman that they can uphold this. kasi ikaw naman mismo nagpark ng car mo di ba? pero there should be some extent and more visual presence of security guards are needed.

but sa mga restos and hotels that are offering valet service, that shouldnt be the case. would you hand over the key's to your brand new vehicle (whatever it is) if you knew that they can't be held responsible for anything? di pwede yun. kaya ako kahit luma na car ko..tinatandaan ko yung odometer reading and trip meter ko.

[Automahn]

this ruling will set a precedent for all valet parking services. will this be the same kaya sa mga mall parkings? nakalagay din kasi sa parking ticket that the establishment will not be held liable for loss or damage to the cars while parked inside their premises.

Para bang sinasabi nila na magbayad ka ng parking pero wala kaming paki sa kotse mo! :mad:

I no longer have my car Valet-parked no matter what. Never mind if I have to wait for an hour or so just to find a decent parking space. I once availed of the Valet service of Barrio Fiesta Edsa when my car was brand new. When I got it back, the radio volume was set at full blast! :fire:

[niky]

Oops... complain to the owner! What day was that? My tito runs that place. If you remember the exact date, puwedeng i-scold yung valet na yan!

I believe wholesale car-theft should be covered by the malls... it's harde to apply it to items inside (they could say YOU did it, as you don't declare items inside the car when you park it...), but those stupid "not liable for loss" stubs don't apply. Not even a SIGNED contract will release the malls from liability of loss for a vehicle entrusted in their care, in a parking area which you are PAYING RENT FOR. And the court is right, a stub is nowhere NEAR a signed contract.

Kaya nga, sa mga business contracts namin, stipulations are explicitly stated NOT VALID if AGAINST LOCAL LAW, and under the law, you have a right to security.

[cyberdoc95]

Mabuti naman! Somebody has to take responsibility somehow! Whose fault was it anyway?! Was it the customer's or the restaurant who offered valet service?!

Whoever is responsible, then that person/establishment should face the penalty or have to payback the aggrieved party, hindi po ba?!

Para na rin, for example, hindi mo nagustuhan ang kinain sa restaurant nila(or may langaw ang sabaw) at sasabihin nilang they don't care or won't give you another bowl of soup or at least an equivalent. Part nang binayaran mo ay ang serbisyo to get good food, as much as, offering a valet service to customers. So why would they not be responsible for the car when they offer the valet service. Kung ayaw nilang managot sa sasakyan, then huwag paasahin ang mga customers...It's as simple as that! UNLESS, they specified that they won't be responsible for losses, which is highly unlikely!..

[seonadancing]

I guess kung na carnap yun kotse mo sa parking lot ng mall dapat liable sila unless u left the ticket in the car. Kasi how would your car be able to get pass the cashier without them checking the plate number on the card . I doubt that they really check it though so that is negligence on their part and should be liable for the loss.

[oldblue]

serves 'em right. hindi naman siguro tama yun puro lang take sila ng take. patron ka na nga ng resto nila, tapos ayaw nila mag-construct ng parking lot para mapilitan ka mag-valet, tapos susulat sa resibo hindi sila liable. sobrang one-sided.

parang yun sa Fitness First Gym, they provide you with hard to duplicate "locker keys" daw and nicely finished wood lockers. tigas na kaka-market nila ito to join their membership. tapos maglalagay sila ng sign sa locker room "Please don't leave your valuables inside the locker. We are not responsible etc etc .." ... sira-ulo gumawa nun sign na yun.

[patbayns]

since the supreme court has made a final ruling on the matter of car theft inside an establishment's parking area, this already constitutes a precedence that can be used when filing similar complaints.

so when filing a similar case, site/quote the case number/title as your basis of complaint, the lower courts will use it as guideline when making decision, the court can be held liable/culpable if they fail to follow this guideline.