Case Summary (G.R. No. 216601)
Petitioner and Respondents
Petitioners: Spouses Benjamin C. and Sonia P. Mamaril. Respondents: Boy Scout of the Philippines (BSP); AIB Security Agency, Inc.; security guards Cesario PeAa and Vicente Gaddi.
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Loss of vehicle: May 26–27, 1995. Complaint filed: November 20, 1996 (Civil Case No. 96-80950). Regional Trial Court (RTC) decision: November 28, 2001 (modified June 11, 2002 reducing value award). Court of Appeals (CA) decision: May 31, 2007; CA resolution denying reconsideration: August 16, 2007. Supreme Court decision affirming the CA: January 14, 2013.
Applicable Law and Authorities
Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered post-1990). Governing statutory and doctrinal authorities cited in the decision include Civil Code provisions (Arts. 20, 1868, 1311, 1643, 1654, 1664, 2176, 2180) and pertinent jurisprudence cited by the courts (e.g., Soliman, Jr. v. Tuazon; Vallacar Transit, Inc. v. Catubig; cases on stipulation pour autrui and employer liability).
Factual Allegations and Claim
Spouses Mamaril parked six jeepneys in the BSP compound for a monthly fee (P300 per unit). They claim the loss of one jeepney was due to gross negligence of the on-duty security guards who allowed a stranger to drive the vehicle out in violation of an agreement that only authorized drivers endorsed by the owners be allowed egress. The guards allegedly admitted fault during investigation. Plaintiffs sued BSP, AIB, and the guards for value of vehicle and accessories, loss of earnings (P275/day), exemplary and moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
RTC Ruling and Relief Awarded
The RTC found gross negligence by guards PeAa and Gaddi and held BSP, AIB, PeAa and Gaddi jointly and severally liable. The RTC awarded the vehicle cost (P250,000) plus P50,000 accessories (later reduced to P200,000 by modification), daily loss of earnings (P275/day) from loss to final adjudication, moral and exemplary damages (P50,000 each), attorney’s fees (P50,000), and appearance fees. The RTC based BSP liability on the Guard Service Contract between BSP and AIB, interpreting the contract as extending protection to properties within the BSP premises and imposing indemnity obligations on AIB.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Rationale
The CA affirmed negligence by the guards and AIB but absolved BSP from liability. The CA reasoned that: (1) the Guard Service Contract was strictly between BSP and AIB, contained no stipulation in favor of third parties (no stipulation pour autrui), and in fact provided that AIB would indemnify BSP for losses caused by its guards; (2) the relationship between BSP and the guards was not employer-employee or principal-agent such that BSP’s liability could be vicariously imposed; (3) the arrangement between BSP and the jeepney owners was essentially a lease of parking space (Art. 1643), not a bailment or insurer relationship; under lease the lessor is not generally responsible for mere trespass by third persons (Arts. 1654, 1664); and (4) an exculpatory clause on the BSP parking ticket (“Management shall not be responsible for loss of vehicle or any of its accessories or article left therein”) — though not per se void as an adhesion contract — reinforced that BSP did not undertake insurer-like obligations. The CA deleted awards for accessories, loss of earnings, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees for lack of proof or legal basis, and held only AIB and the guards liable for the proven value of the vehicle (P200,000) and costs.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The petition raised principally whether the CA erred in absolving BSP of liability; whether the Guard Service Contract imposed obligations in favor of third parties (Sps. Mamaril); whether the BSP–Mamaril relationship was a lease that relieved BSP of a duty to protect vehicles; and whether the CA erred in deleting several monetary awards including damages and attorney’s fees.
Supreme Court Analysis — Liability and Causation
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s findings. It emphasized that proximate cause of the loss was the guards’ negligent act in permitting an unidentified person to drive out the jeepney. The guards’ admissions at investigation supported that finding. However, the Court found no basis to impute that negligence to BSP under Article 2180: the guards were employees of AIB, assigned pursuant to the Guard Service Contract; BSP did not hire or employ the guards and thus was not the employer. The Court relied on doctrine (Soliman, Jr. v. Tuazon) that a security agency which recruits, hires and assigns guards is the employer and that the client ordinarily cannot be treated as employer merely because guards were assigned to its premises or because the client gave instructions. Agency requires representation and consent (Art. 1868), elements not present here.
Supreme Court Analysis — Contractual Rights of Third Parties
The Court applied the principle of relativity of contracts and the requisites for stipulation pour autrui under Article 1311. It found no stipulation in favor of Sps. Mamaril in the Guard Service Contract; plaintiffs were not parties to that contract and did not accept any purported benefit prior to revocation. Therefore, they could not enforce contractual obligations between BSP and AIB.
Supreme Court Analysis — Nature of Parking Arrangement and Lessor’s Obligations
The Court agreed with the CA that the arrangement between BSP and the jeepney owners constituted a lease of parking space under Article 1643 — the owners paid P300/month per unit and retained possession and keys to their vehicles. Under Articles 1654 and 1664, the lessor must deliver the thing fit for intended use and maintain peaceful enjoyment, but the lessor is not generally liable as insurer against acts of third parties; lessee’s remedy lies against the trespasser. BSP had provided s
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 216601)
Case Caption and Court Entry
- Citation: 701 Phil. 400; G.R. No. 179382; Decision dated January 14, 2013, Second Division of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
- Parties: Spouses Benjamin C. Mamaril and Sonia P. Mamaril (petitioners/plaintiffs-appellees below) vs. The Boy Scout of the Philippines (BSP; defendant-appellant before the Court of Appeals and petitioner before the Supreme Court), AIB Security Agency, Inc. (AIB; respondent), Cesario PeAa (also spelled Penaa in some parts of the records) and Vicente Gaddi (respondents; security guards employed by AIB).
- Lower courts and docket references: Case originally docketed as Civil Case No. 96-80950 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 39; appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 75978; petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court assails the CA Decision of May 31, 2007 and Resolution of August 16, 2007.
- Author of Supreme Court Decision: Justice Perlas-Bernabe; concurrence by Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ.
Antecedent Facts
- Occupation and long-standing practice: Spouses Mamaril have been jeepney operators since 1971 and parked six-passenger jeepneys nightly at the BSP compound at 181 Concepcion Street, Malate, Manila, paying P300.00 per month per unit for parking.
- Incident: On the evening of May 26, 1995, their vehicles were parked inside the BSP compound; on the following morning one vehicle, Plate No. DCG 392, was missing and never recovered.
- Security arrangement at BSP: BSP had contracted AIB Security Agency, Inc. pursuant to a Guard Service Contract dated September 23, 1976, whereby AIB supplied security guards (including Cesario PeAa and Vicente Gaddi) to provide protection for BSP’s compound and properties.
- Guards’ account: PeAa and Gaddi stated that a male person who looked familiar to them took the subject vehicle out of the compound; records indicate the guards admitted fault during ensuing investigation.
- Parking ticket: BSP issued a parking ticket containing an exculpatory clause stating that “Management shall not be responsible for loss of vehicle or any of its accessories or article left therein.”
Procedural History and Claims Filed
- Complaint: On November 20, 1996, Spouses Mamaril filed a complaint for damages before the RTC of Manila, Branch 39, naming BSP, AIB, PeAa, and Gaddi as defendants.
- Reliefs prayed for by plaintiffs: (a) value of the subject vehicle and accessories aggregated at P300,000.00; (b) P275.00 daily loss of income from the day of loss; (c) exemplary damages; (d) moral damages; (e) attorney’s fees; and (f) costs of suit.
- Defenses pleaded:
- BSP: Denied liability, contended that Spouses Mamaril directly dealt with AIB concerning parking handling, pointed to the exculpatory clause on the parking ticket, and asserted that the Guard Service Contract covered only protection of BSP’s properties, officers and employees and that Spouses Mamaril were not parties thereto.
- AIB: Alleged due diligence in selection, training and supervision of its guards.
- PeAa and Gaddi: Claimed the person who drove off the vehicle represented himself as an authorized driver and had the vehicle key; thus, plaintiffs had no cause of action against them.
RTC Ruling (November 28, 2001; modified June 11, 2002)
- Dispositive judgment (as rendered by the RTC):
- Ordered BSP, AIB, and security guards Cesario PeAa and Vicente Gaddi to pay plaintiffs jointly and severally:
- Cost of vehicle: P250,000.00 plus accessories P50,000.00 (total P300,000.00 originally).
- Daily loss of income: P275.00 per day from loss until final adjudication.
- Moral damages: P50,000.00.
- Exemplary damages: P50,000.00.
- Attorney’s fees: P50,000.00 and P1,500.00 per appearance for court appearances.
- Costs of suit.
- Subsequent RTC order (June 11, 2002): Modified to reduce cost of stolen vehicle from P250,000.00 to P200,000.00.
- Ordered BSP, AIB, and security guards Cesario PeAa and Vicente Gaddi to pay plaintiffs jointly and severally:
- RTC findings and rationale:
- The guards’ act in allowing an unidentified person to drive out the jeepney in violation of an internal agreement constituted gross negligence.
- Because the Guard Service Contract between BSP and AIB offered protection to all properties inside BSP premises and contained an indemnity provision obligating AIB to indemnify BSP for losses caused by its guards, BSP was held liable along with AIB and the guards.
- Result: BSP, AIB, PeAa and Gaddi held jointly and severally liable for the loss.
Court of Appeals Ruling (May 31, 2007) and Resolution (August 16, 2007)
- CA holdings:
- Affirmed negligence of security guards PeAa and Gaddi.
- Absolved BSP from any liability: held that the Guard Service Contract was purely between BSP and AIB and did not create obligations or liabilities in favor of third persons such as Spouses Mamaril; no evidence established negligence by BSP.
- Characterized the arrangement between Spouses Mamaril and BSP as substantially a contract of lease (parking for consideration), making BSP a lessor not an insurer or custodian obligated to protect lessees’ vehicles.
- Deleted various RTC awards for lack of proof: P50,000.00 for accessories; P275.00 daily loss of income; moral and exemplary damages; attorney’s fees and appearance fees.
- Result on appeal: Only AIB, Cesario PeAa and Vicente Gaddi were held jointly and severally liable to pay spouses Mamaril P200,000.00 as cost of the lost vehicle and costs of suit; BSP absolved.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Principal assignments of error raised by Spouses Mamaril: I. Whether the CA erred in absolving BSP from any liability. II. Whether the CA erred in ruling that the Guard Service Contract is purely between BSP and AIB and contained nothing indicating obligation or liability toward third persons like petitioners. III. Whether the CA erred in considering the agreement between BSP and petitioners as a contract of lease, thereby relieving BSP of duty to protect or take care of petitioners’ vehicles. IV. Whether the CA erred in ruling petitioners were not entitled to damages and attorney’s fees.
- Petitioners’ contentions summarized:
- BSP should be held liable on the basis of the Guard Service Contract and the parking ticket issued by BSP.
- The CA erred in deleting the RTC awards of damages and attorney’s fees.
Governing Legal Principles Cited by the Supreme Court
- Liability for fault or negligence:
- Article 20, Civil Code: every person who willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter.
- Article 2176, Civil Code: quasi-delict; obligation to pay for damage caused by act or omission where there is fault or negligence; governed by provisions of the chapter.
- Defi