YHT REALTY CORP v CA

McLoughlin is an Australian businessman and philantrophist who usually visits the Philippines. His
contact here is Brumhilda Tan.
Lopez was the hotel manager, while Lainez and Payam had custody of the Safety Deposit Boxes (box).
The Box procedure = it could be only opened using 2 keys. 1 given to the guest, and the other in the
possession of the hotel management. Guest can only personally request the management and an
employee would accompany in opening the Box with the 2 keys.
When McLoughlin arrived from Australia, he registered with TROPICANA hotels and rented a box. He
had 3 envelopes ($10K, $5K, $10K) along with other credit cards and bank books.
Before leaving for a brief trip, he opened the box but discovered that 1 envelope only contained $3K.
Other jewelry were also missing.
When he confronted the hotel, specifically Lainez and Payam, they admitted that it was TAN (his contact
here in the Phils) opened the box. Tan was confronted and admitted to stealing the key.
Tan was a close contact of McLoughlin, employees believe that Tan was his spouse for she was always
with him most of the time. Tan requested that the box be opened at around 6am in the morning, while
McLoughlin was still asleep. She did this on 3 occasions.
Lopez wrote a promissory note promising to pay the amount lost. However, McLoughlin insisted that it the
hotel must assume responsibility. Lopez REFUSED, relying on the conditions for renting the box:
- To release and hold free and blameless the hotel from any liability arising from loss.
McLoughlin allegedly EXECUTED such contract to be able to use the Safety Deposit Box
McLoughlin even consulted his lawyers in Australia, who affirmed that those stipulations are void for
being violative of universal hotel practices and customs.
TC: Damages against YHT et al, but the trial proceeded without Lopez and Tan
TC favored McLoughlin. CA affirmed.
ISSUE: W/N the safety deposit box contract executed by McLoughlin is null and void. YES, null and void
HELD: Given the established safety deposit box procedure, is inevitable to conclude that the
management had at least a hand in the consummation of the taking. The employees even admitted that
they assisted Tan on three (!) separate occasions in opening McLoughlins box. The management failed
to notify McLoughlin of the incident and waited for him to discover the taking before it disclosed the matter
to him. Therefore, Tropicana should be held responsible for the damage suffered by McLoughlin by
reason of the negligence of its employees.

Tropicana was guilty of concurrent negligence. To rule otherwise would result in undermining
the safety of the SDBs in hotels, for the management will be given imprimatur to allow any person, under
the pretense of being a family member or a visitor of the guest, to have access without fear of any liability
that will attach in case such person turns out to be a complete stranger

General rule:
Art. 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.
Exception: unless his actionable negligence contributes to the loss.