Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ruling:
No. There is no breach of trust from a banks failure to return the
subject matter of the deposit. Bank deposits are in the nature of irregular deposits.
All kinds of bank deposits are to be treated as loans and are to be covered by the
law on loans Art.1980. In reality the depositor is the creditor while the bank is the
debtor. Failure of the respondent bank to honor the time deposit is failure to pay its
obligation as a debtor.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of merit, with costs against
petitioner.
hotel. This is because innkeepers by the neture of their business, have supervision
and controlof their inns and the premises threof.
It is not necessary that the effect was actually delivered but it is enough that
they are within the inn. If a guest and goods are within the inn, that is sufficient to
charge him.
The owner of a hotel may exonerate himself from liability by showing that the
guest has taken exclusive control of his own goods, but this must be exclusive
custody and control of a guest, and must not be held under the supervision and
care of the innkeeper,ey are kept in a room assigned to a guest or the other proper
depository in the house.
In this case, the guest deposited his effects in the hotel because they are in
his room and within the premises of the hotel, and therefore, within the supervision
and control of the hotel owner.
Notice
The Court ruled that there was no doubt that the person in charge had
knowledge of his revolver, the bag, and pants of the guest, De los Santos.
The requirement of notice being evidently for the purpose of closing the door to
fraudulent claims for non-existent articles, the lack thereof was fatal to De los
Santos claim for reparation for the loss of his eyeglass, ring, and cash.
Precautions
While an innkeeper cannot free himself from responsibility by posting notices,
there can be no doubt of the innkeepers right to make such regulations in the
management of his inn as will more effectually secure the property of his guest and
operate as protection to himself, and that it is incumbent upon the guest, if he
means to hold the inkeeper ho his responsibility, to comply with any regulation that
is just and reasonable, when he is requested to do so.
However, in this case, the notice requiring actual deposit of the effects with
the manager was an unreasonable regulation. It was unreasonable to require the
guest to deposit his bag ,pants and revolver to the manager. De los Santos had
exercised the necessary diligence with respect to the care and vigilance of his
effects.