Case Digest: Spouses Mamaril vs. The BSP
G.R. No. 179382, January 14, 2013
SPOUSES BEN.JAMIN . MAMARIL AND SONIA P. MAMARIL, Petitioners, v. THE BOY SCOUT OF THE PHILIPPINES, AIB SECURITY AGENCY, INC., CESARIO PENA,'' AND VICENTE GADDI, Respondents.
PERLAS-BERNABE. J.:
FACTS:
Spouses Benjamin C. Mamaril and Sonia P. Mamaril (Spouses Mamaril) are jeepney operators. They park their passenger jeepneys every night at the Boy Scout of the Philippines (BSP) for a fee per month for each unit.
As usual, all these vehicles were parked inside the BSP compound one evening. However, the following morning, one of the vehicles was missing and was never recovered. According to the security guards CesarioPe (Pe) and Vicente Gaddi (Gaddi) of AIB Security Agency, Inc. (AIB) with whom BSP had contracted (Guard Service Contract) for its security and protection, a male person who looked familiar to them took the subject vehicle out of the compound.
ISSUE: Whether or not BSP is liable based on the Guard Service Contract and the parking ticket it issued.
HELD: The petition lacks merit.
CIVIL LAW: Principle of Relativity of Contracts; Lease
With respect to Guard Service Contract, it is undisputed that Spouses Mamaril are not parties therein. Neither did the subject agreement contain any stipulation pour autrui. And even if there was, Spouses Mamaril did not convey any acceptance thereof. Thus, under the principle of relativity of contracts, they cannot validly claim any rights or favor under the said agreement.
With respect to the parking ticket, it has been held that the act of parking a vehicle in a garage, upon payment of a fixed amount, is a lease. A lessor-lessee relationship existed between Spouses Mamaril and BSP. Article 1664 of the same Code states that [t]he lessor is not obliged to answer for a mere act of trespass which a third person may cause on the use of the thing leased; but the lessee shall have a direct action against the intruder. Here, BSP was not remiss in its obligation to provide Spouses Mamaril a suitable parking space for their jeepneys as it even hired security guards to secure the premises; hence, it should not be held liable for the loss suffered by Spouses Mamaril.
DENIED.
SPOUSES BEN.JAMIN . MAMARIL AND SONIA P. MAMARIL, Petitioners, v. THE BOY SCOUT OF THE PHILIPPINES, AIB SECURITY AGENCY, INC., CESARIO PENA,'' AND VICENTE GADDI, Respondents.
PERLAS-BERNABE. J.:
FACTS:
Spouses Benjamin C. Mamaril and Sonia P. Mamaril (Spouses Mamaril) are jeepney operators. They park their passenger jeepneys every night at the Boy Scout of the Philippines (BSP) for a fee per month for each unit.
As usual, all these vehicles were parked inside the BSP compound one evening. However, the following morning, one of the vehicles was missing and was never recovered. According to the security guards CesarioPe (Pe) and Vicente Gaddi (Gaddi) of AIB Security Agency, Inc. (AIB) with whom BSP had contracted (Guard Service Contract) for its security and protection, a male person who looked familiar to them took the subject vehicle out of the compound.
ISSUE: Whether or not BSP is liable based on the Guard Service Contract and the parking ticket it issued.
HELD: The petition lacks merit.
CIVIL LAW: Principle of Relativity of Contracts; Lease
With respect to Guard Service Contract, it is undisputed that Spouses Mamaril are not parties therein. Neither did the subject agreement contain any stipulation pour autrui. And even if there was, Spouses Mamaril did not convey any acceptance thereof. Thus, under the principle of relativity of contracts, they cannot validly claim any rights or favor under the said agreement.
With respect to the parking ticket, it has been held that the act of parking a vehicle in a garage, upon payment of a fixed amount, is a lease. A lessor-lessee relationship existed between Spouses Mamaril and BSP. Article 1664 of the same Code states that [t]he lessor is not obliged to answer for a mere act of trespass which a third person may cause on the use of the thing leased; but the lessee shall have a direct action against the intruder. Here, BSP was not remiss in its obligation to provide Spouses Mamaril a suitable parking space for their jeepneys as it even hired security guards to secure the premises; hence, it should not be held liable for the loss suffered by Spouses Mamaril.
DENIED.
