12 de Los Santos v Tan Khey

12 De los Santos v Tan Khey (1962) Facts 

 



De los Santos (Plaintiff) lodged in the International Hotel in Iloilo City, which was owned by Tan Khey (Defendant). o When Plaintiff arrived in the hotel, he left shortly thereafter, depositing his revolver and bag with a certain Abutanatin. The latter was in charge of the hotel. o The bag contained a birthstone ring, an eyeglass, and a pocketbook. o He returned that evening and took his things from Abutanatin. o When he got into his room, he locked the door and went to sleep. The next morning, he woke up and found that the door to his room was open and that his pants and bag containing the revolver was missing. When he reported the incident to the authorities, a secret service agent investigated the matter and found that a wall of the room of the Plaintiff was only 7 feet high and had an opening from which one could enter from the outside. Tan Khey disclaims liability for the loss, saying that the things were not deposited with the manager at the time they were lost despite notice to that effect posted in the hotel. o He likewise claims that to be liable under Art. 1998 of the Civil Code, the following must concur  Deposit of effects made by travelers in hotels or inns  Notice was given to the hotel keeper or employee of the effects brought by guests  That the guests/travelers take the precautions advised by the hotel keepers/employees relative to the vigilance of their effects

Issue W/N Tan Khey, as owner of the hotel, is liable for the loss despite their being lost not while in actual custody of an employee of the hotel, having no notice of the effects lost, and for failure of De los Santos to take the necessary precautions advised by the hotel. Held YES. Under Art. 1998, when the law speaks of “depositing of effects by travelers in hotels or inns,” it does not mean that there is a personal receipt by the innkeeper of such effects. 



This is so because nature of the business of an innkeeper is not only to provide lodgings, but also to provide security to their persons and effects. o Such security is not only confined to those effects actually delivered to the innkeeper for safekeeping, but also to all effects brought in the hotel. Also, a hotel has supervision and control of the premises thereof. o The guests being strangers to the place, they must rely on the vigilance and protection of the innkeepers over the effects placed in the premises of the hotel.









Thus, it is not even necessary that the effects be actually delivered to the innkeeper hold him liable. o It is sufficient that such effects are within the inn. o This liability is not discharged even if the effects are in the personal custody of the guest but still within the inn or hotel. However, since Plaintiff failed to give notice of the contents of the bag at the time of his check-in, Defendant cannot be held liable on the value of these contents. o Only the value of the bag, revolver, and pants can be recovered since notice thereof was unnecessary considering that they were in plain view. As to Defendant’s contention that there was a notice posted in the hotel on how things are to be deposited and therefore the failure of the Plaintiff to heed such notice bars him from recovery, such contention cannot be maintained. o Though a hotel can impose rules and regulations, such must be just and reasonable. o In this case, it was unreasonable for the Plaintiff to be required to deposit the items stolen considering that he needs the gun for protection, the pants to have something to wear and there is no cogent reason for him to deposit his bag.  He even locked the door before he went to sleep which is evidence of due diligence. [Contention on measure of damages omitted.]