7/23/2019 Digest - Mamaril

1/2

SPOUSES MAMARIL v. BOY SCOUTS

OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 179382

FACTS: Spouses Benjamin and SoniaMamaril are jeepney operators. They

would park their six (6 passen!erjeepneys e"ery ni!ht at the Boy S#out o$the %hilippines& (BS% #ompound $or a $eeo$ %'. per month $or ea#h unit. )nemornin! a$ter all su#h "ehi#les wereparked inside the BS% #ompound* one o$the "ehi#les was missin! and was ne"erre#o"ered. A##ordin! to the se#urity!uards Cesario %e+a (%e+a and ,i#ente-addi (-addi o$ AB Se#urity A!en#y* n#.(AB with whom BS% had #ontra#ted $orits se#urity and prote#tion* a male person

who looked $amiliar to them took thesu/je#t "ehi#le out o$ the #ompound. Sps.Mamaril 0led a #omplaint $or dama!es/e$ore the 1e!ional Trial Court (1TCa!ainst BS%* AB* %e+a and -addi. The1TC de#ided in $a"or o$ the Sps. Mamaril.The Court o$ Appeals modi0ed the 1TC2sde#ision and a/sol"ed BS% $rom anylia/ility.

SS34: 5) BS% is lia/le $or the loss o$one o$ the "ehi#les owned /y the Sps.Mamaril.

137-: o* BS% is not lia/le. t isundisputed that the proximate #ause o$the loss o$ Sps. Mamaril&s "ehi#le was thene!li!ent a#t o$ se#urity !uards %e+a and-addi in allowin! an unidenti0ed personto dri"e out the su/je#t "ehi#le. %e+a and-addi were assi!ned as se#urity !uards/y AB to BS% pursuant to a -uardSer"i#e Contra#t. Clearly* no employer8employee relationship existed /etweenBS% and the se#urity !uards assi!ned in

its premises. Conse9uently* the latter&sne!li!en#e #annot /e imputed a!ainstBS% /ut should /e attri/uted to AB* thetrue employer o$ %e+a and -addi.

or #an it /e said that a prin#ipal8a!entrelationship existed /etween BS% and these#urity !uards %e+a and -addi as tomake the $ormer lia/le $or the latter&s#omplained a#t. The /asis $or a!en#y isrepresentation* whi#h element is a/sentin the instant #ase. 1e#ords show that

BS% merely hired the ser"i#es o$ AB*whi#h* in turn* assi!ned se#urity !uards*solely $or the prote#tion o$ its propertiesand premises. owhere #an it /e in$erredin the -uard Ser"i#e Contra#t that ABwas appointed as an a!ent o$ BS%.nstead* what the parties intended was apure prin#ipal8#lient relationship where/y

$or a #onsideration* AB rendered itsse#urity ser"i#es to BS%.

Furthermore* Arti#le ' o$ the Ci"ilCode states* ;Contra#ts take e (@ The $a"or is un#onditionaland un#ompensated> ( The third person#ommuni#ated his or her a##eptan#e o$the $a"or /e$ore its re"o#ation> and (6The #ontra#tin! parties do not represent*or are not authoried* /y the third party.

one o$ the $ore!oin! elements o/tains inthis #ase. t is undisputed that Sps.Mamaril are not parties to the -uard

Ser"i#e Contra#t. either did the su/je#ta!reement #ontain any stipulation pourautrui. And e"en i$ there was* Sps.Mamaril did not #on"ey any a##eptan#ethereo$. Thus* under the prin#iple o$relati"ity o$ #ontra#ts* they #annot "alidly#laim any ri!hts or $a"or under the saida!reement. First* the -uard Ser"i#eContra#t /etween BS% and AB Se#urityA!en#y is purely /etween the partiestherein. Also* there is a/solutely nothin!in the said #ontra#t that would indi#ate

any o/li!ation andor lia/ility on the parto$ the parties therein in $a"or o$ thirdpersons su#h as the Sps. Mamaril.

Moreo"er* the #ontra#t /etween theparties herein was one o$ lease as de0nedunder the Ci"il Code. t has /een heldthat the a#t o$ parkin! a "ehi#le in a

7/23/2019 Digest - Mamaril

2/2

!ara!e* upon payment o$ a 0xed amount*is a lease. 4"en in a majority o$ Ameri#an#ases* it has /een ruled that where a#ustomer simply pays a $ee* parks his #arin any a"aila/le spa#e in the lot* lo#ks the#ar and takes the key with him* the

possession and #ontrol o$ the #ar*ne#essary elements in /ailment* do notpass to the parkin! lot operator* hen#e*the #ontra#tual relationship /etween theparties is one o$ lease.

Arti#le 6@ o$ the Ci"il Code pro"idesthat Dthe lessor (BS% is o/li!ed: ( todeli"er the thin! whi#h is the o/je#t o$ the#ontra#t in su#h a #ondition as to renderit 0t $or the use intended> (? to make onthe same durin! the lease all the

ne#essary repairs in order to keep it

suita/le $or the use to whi#h it has /eende"oted* unless there is a stipulation tothe #ontrary> and (' to maintain thelessee in the pea#e$ul and ade9uateenjoyment o$ the lease $or the entireduration o$ the #ontra#t.D n relation

thereto* Arti#le 66@ o$ the same Codestates that Dthe lessor is not o/li!ed toanswer $or a mere a#t o$ trespass whi#h athird person may #ause on the use o$ thethin! leased> /ut the lessee shall ha"e adire#t a#tion a!ainst the intruder.D Eere*BS% was not remiss in its o/li!ation topro"ide Sps. Mamaril a suita/le parkin!spa#e $or their jeepneys as it e"en hiredse#urity !uards to se#ure the premises>hen#e* it should not /e held lia/le $or theloss su