Title
Supreme Court
Spouses Mamaril vs. Boy Scouts of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. 179382
Decision Date
Jan 14, 2013
Jeepney stolen from BSP compound; security guards' negligence held liable, BSP absolved as parking was a lease, not bailment.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-38346-47)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background
    • Spouses Benjamin C. Mamaril and Sonia P. Mamaril (Sps. Mamaril) have operated six-passenger jeepneys since 1971 and parked them nightly at the Boy Scouts of the Philippines (BSP) compound in Malate, Manila, at ₱300.00 per unit per month.
    • On May 26, 1995, their jeepneys were parked inside the BSP premises; the next morning, the vehicle bearing Plate No. DCG 392 was missing and never recovered.
    • BSP had contracted AIB Security Agency, Inc. (AIB) to provide security; its guards, Cesario Peñaa and Vicente Gaddi, admitted during investigation that they negligently allowed an acquaintance of the owners to drive out the jeepney.
  • Procedural History
    • November 20, 1996: Sps. Mamaril filed Civil Case No. 96-80950 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Manila, Branch 39, against BSP, AIB, Peñaa, and Gaddi, seeking:
      • Value of jeepney and accessories (₱300,000.00).
      • Daily income loss (₱275.00/day).
      • Exemplary and moral damages.
      • Attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
    • Defenses:
      • BSP invoked exculpatory clause on its parking ticket and argued the Guard Service Contract covered only BSP’s own property, officers, and employees.
      • AIB claimed due diligence in guard selection and supervision; the guards contended the driver appeared authorized and had a key.
    • November 28, 2001 RTC Decision: Held BSP, AIB, Peñaa, and Gaddi jointly and severally liable to pay:
      • Cost of jeepney (₱250,000.00) and accessories (₱50,000.00).
      • Income loss (₱275.00/day).
      • Moral damages (₱50,000.00) and exemplary damages (₱50,000.00).
      • Attorney’s fees (₱50,000.00) and ₱1,500.00 per court appearance.
      • Costs of suit.
    • June 11, 2002 RTC Modification: Reduced vehicle value award to ₱200,000.00.
    • BSP alone appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
  • CA Decision and Supreme Court Petition
    • May 31, 2007 CA Decision (CA-G.R. CV No. 75978):
      • Affirmed guards’ negligence; held only AIB, Peñaa, and Gaddi jointly liable (₱200,000.00).
      • Deleted awards for accessories, income loss, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees due to lack of proof.
      • Absolved BSP from any liability.
    • August 16, 2007 CA Resolution: Denied Sps. Mamaril’s motion for reconsideration.
    • Sps. Mamaril filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assigning four errors concerning BSP’s liability, contract interpretation, lease characterization, and deletion of damages and attorney’s fees.

Issues:

  • Whether the CA erred in absolving BSP from any liability for the loss of the jeepney.
  • Whether the Guard Service Contract between BSP and AIB created obligations in favor of third parties such as Sps. Mamaril.
  • Whether the CA wrongly classified the parking arrangement as a lease, thereby relieving BSP of a duty to protect the vehicles.
  • Whether the deletion of awards for accessories, income loss, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees was in error.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.