#2 CREDIT TRANSACTIONS LECTURE NOTES – Articles 1999 To 2009, Pages 962 –

968 PARAS 2016 – 20210303 Wednesday

Is the hotel-keeper liable for things placed in the annexes of the hotel?
ARTICLE 1999.
The hotel-keeper is liable
for the vehicles, animals and articles
which have been introduced or placed
in the annexes of the hotel. (n) 
Notes

 Note also Art. 102, par. 1, RPC; p. 99;

Art. 102 RPC
Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavern-keepers and proprietors of
establishments. – In default of the persons criminally liable,
innkeepers, tavern-keepers, and any other persons or corporations
shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their establishments,
in all cases where a violation
of municipal ordinances
or some general or special police regulations
shall have been committed by them or their employees.

Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable

for the restitution of the goods
taken by robbery or theft
within their houses
from guests lodging therein,
or for the payment of the value thereof,
provided that guests
shall have notified in advance
the innkeeper himself, or the persons representing him,
of the deposits of such goods within the inn;
and shall furthermore have followed the directions
which such innkeeper or his representative may have given them
with respect to the care and vigilance over such goods.
No liability shall attach
in case of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
unless committed by the innkeeper’s employees.

Is the hotel keeper liable for loss caused by the employees of the hotel keeper?
What about loss caused by strangers?
What about loss due to force majeure?
What particular rule is provided regarding the degree of diligence required to be
observed by the hotel keeper?

ARTICLE 2000.
The responsibility referred to
in the two preceding articles
[Arts. 1998 - deposit of effects made by travellers in hotels or inns
and 1999 - hotel-keeper is liable for the vehicles, animals and articles
which have been introduced or placed in the annexes of the hotel]
shall include
the loss of, or injury to
the personal property of the guests
caused by the servants or employees
of the keepers of hotels or inns
as well as strangers;
but not that which may proceed
from any force majeure.
The fact that travellers are constrained to rely
on the vigilance of the keeper of the hotels or inns shall be considered in determining
the degree of care required of him. (1784a) 

Notes

Is the act of thief or robber deemed force majeure?

Is the hotel-keeper liable for said act?
Under what instance is act of thief or robber deemed force majeure?

ARTICLE 2001.
The act of a thief or robber,
who has entered the hotel
is not deemed force majeure,
unless it is done with the use
of arms or through an irresistible force. (n) 

#qtm – Case: A. In the middle of the night, A went up the fire escape, slowly raised a
guest’s window, went inside the room, and stole the guest’s shoes. Is the hotel keeper
liable? Explain your answer, citing your legal basis.

B. The bell boy of a hotel, at the point of a gun asked the watchman of a hotel’s safe to
open it for him. The bell boy then run away taking with him some jewelries deposited in
said safe by the guests. Will the hotel-keeper be liable? Explain your answer, citing your
legal basis.

Paras, p. 959.
Notes
 Where the theft or robbery is committed by an employee of the hotel, Art. 2000 shall
apply, making the hotel-keeper liable for the loss;

ARTICLE 2000.
The responsibility referred to
in the two preceding articles
shall include
the loss of, or injury to
the personal property of the guests
caused by the servants or employees
of the keepers of hotels or inns
as well as strangers;
but not that which may proceed
from any force majeure.
The fact that travellers are constrained to rely
on the vigilance of the keeper of the hotels or inns shall be considered in determining
the degree of care required of him. (1784a)

Is the hotel-keeper liable for loss caused by the guest, family or visitors of the hotel
guest?
What is the rule if loss is caused by the character of the things brought into the hotel?

ARTICLE 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. (n) 

Notes
 The fault under Art. 2002 is on the side of the guest and not of the hotel-keeper;

Will the posting of notice declaring that the hotel-keeper will not be liable or will be free
the hotel-keeper from liability?

What is the rule where there is stipulation that the hotel-keeper’s responsibility under
Arts. 1998-2001 NCC is suppressed or diminished?

ARTICLE 2003.
The hotel-keeper cannot free himself
from responsibility
by posting notices to the effect
that he is not liable for the articles
brought by the guest.
Any stipulation
between the hotel-keeper and the guest
whereby the responsibility of the former
as set forth in articles 1998 to 2001
is suppressed or diminished
shall be void. (n) 

Notes
 See case of De Los Santos v. Tan Khey, p. 102; hotel guest’s bag (containing cash,
ring, revolver) placed under his bed was stolen; hotel disclaimed liability because the
guest did not deposit the things with the manager despite a notice to that effect posted
in the hotel;

SC held when the law speaks of “deposit” of effects by the traveller, personal receipt
by the innkeeper for safekeeping of the effects is not necessarily meant thereby; the
reason therefor is the fact that the nature of the business of the innkeeper is to provide
not only lodging but also security for their personal effects;

The security mentioned is not confined to effects delivered to the innkeeper for
safekeeping but also to all effects brought to the hotel; innkeepers, by the nature of
their business, have supervision and control of their inns and its premises; by reason of
the travellers being strangers to the place, travellers are constrained to rely on the
vigilance and protection of innkeepers over their effects placed in the premises of the
hotel;

Authorities are to the effect that it is not necessary in order to hold an innkeeper liable
that the effects of the guests be actually delivered to him or his employees, it is enough
that they are within the inn;

Does the hotel-keeper have the right to retain the things brought into the hotel in case
lodging fee or supplies furnished to the guest are not paid by the guest?
Article 2004. 
The hotel-keeper has a right to retain
the things brought into the hotel by the guest, as a security for credits
on account of lodging,
and supplies usually furnished to hotel guests. (n)

Notes
 Art. 2004 applies only when the debtor is a guest of the hotel, i.e. one who is registered
or one allowed to stay as guest; the rule does not apply if the debtor is not a guest of
the hotel as understood by the term “traveller”;

 Note that a right of retention is also recognized in construction or piece of work (Art.
1721) and in commodatum for damages suffered by the bailee occasioned by the
unrevealed flaws of the thing loaned (Art. 1944 and Art. 1951);

 See case of Chuidian v. Hotel Inter-Continental, p. 104; whatever is brought into the
hotel by the guest becomes security for credit and is subject to retention; it is enough
that they were brought into the hotel, it is not required that the hotel must have
acquired physical or constructive possession of said things;

The right to retain is in the nature of legal pledge under Art. 2080; [Article 2105. The
debtor cannot ask for the return of the thing pledged against the will of the creditor,
unless and until he has paid the debt and its interest, with expenses in a proper case.];

 Note, Paras submits that the right to retain does not include the right to sell without
judicial authorization, citing that the law is silent on this point; Paras however also
notes that the right of retention is in the nature of a pledge created by operation law and
thus, the hotel-keeper is allowed to sell the thing retained under Arts. 2121 and 2122;
Paras submits that the issue is debatable;

 See also Art. 315 of RPC; act of obtaining food or accommodation in a hotel or inn
without payment is estafa;

CHAPTER 4
Sequestration or Judicial Deposit 

When is there judicial deposit or sequestration?

ARTICLE 2005.
A judicial deposit or sequestration takes place
when an attachment or seizure of property in litigation
is ordered. (1785)
Notes

What things may be the objects of sequestration?

ARTICLE 2006.
Movable as well as immovable property
may be the object of sequestration. (1786) 

Notes

Until when is the depositary of the property sequestered charged with his responsibilities
as depositary?

ARTICLE 2007.
The depositary of property or objects sequestrated
cannot be relieved of his responsibility
until the controversy
which gave rise thereto
has come to an end,
unless the court so orders. (1787a) 

Notes

What is the degree of care that the depositary of sequestered property is obliged to
observe?

ARTICLE 2008.
The depositary of property sequestrated
is bound to comply, with respect to the same,
with all the obligations
of a good father of a family. (1788) 

NOTES

Article 2009. 
As to matters not provided for in this Code,
judicial sequestration shall be governed by the Rules of Court. (1789a)
NOTES

END OF CREDIT TRANSACTIONS LECTURE NOTES – Articles 1999 To 2009, Pages

962 – 968 PARAS 2016