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

[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.