Case Notes
Important Notes Article 1157 of the New Civil Code states that there are 5 sources of obligations: laws, contracts, quasi-contracts, felonies (acts or omissions punished by law), and quasi-delicts.
PEOPLE’S CAR INC., vs. Commando Security L-36840 May 22, 1973
Facts:
Plaintiff, a car dealer, entered into a contract with defendant, a security agency, and its duty is to guard the former’s premises from theft, robbery, vandalism and other unlawful acts. On a certain night, the security guard deployed by the defendant, without authority neither from the plaintiff nor from defendant, drove a car, which was entrusted to the plaintiff by a customer for service and maintenance, outside of the plaintiff’s compound and around the city which after the security guard lost control of, fell into a ditch, causing it severe damage. Plaintiff complained against the security guard for qualified theft. While the car is undergoing repair, plaintiff rented a car for its customer for 47 days until the car is fixed, and took pain to repair the damaged car.
Then plaintiff instituted a claim against the defendant for recovery of the actual damages it incurred due to the unlawful act of the latter’s personnel, citing inter alia the Par. 5 of the contract that defendant accepts “sole responsibility for the acts done during their watch hours”. Defendant on the other hand, interposed, that it may be liable but its liability is limited under Par. 4 of said contract providing: “that its liability “shall not exceed one thousand (P1,000.00) pesos per guard post”. To quote the contract:
‘Par. 4 — Party of the Second Part (defendant) through the negligence of its guards, after an investigation has been conducted by the Party of the First Part (plaintiff) wherein the Party of the Second Part has been duly represented shall assume full responsibilities for any loss or damages that may occur to any property of the Party of the First Part for which it is accountable, during the watch hours of
PEOPLE’S CAR INC., vs. Commando Security L-36840 May 22, 1973
Facts:
Plaintiff, a car dealer, entered into a contract with defendant, a security agency, and its duty is to guard the former’s premises from theft, robbery, vandalism and other unlawful acts. On a certain night, the security guard deployed by the defendant, without authority neither from the plaintiff nor from defendant, drove a car, which was entrusted to the plaintiff by a customer for service and maintenance, outside of the plaintiff’s compound and around the city which after the security guard lost control of, fell into a ditch, causing it severe damage. Plaintiff complained against the security guard for qualified theft. While the car is undergoing repair, plaintiff rented a car for its customer for 47 days until the car is fixed, and took pain to repair the damaged car.
Then plaintiff instituted a claim against the defendant for recovery of the actual damages it incurred due to the unlawful act of the latter’s personnel, citing inter alia the Par. 5 of the contract that defendant accepts “sole responsibility for the acts done during their watch hours”. Defendant on the other hand, interposed, that it may be liable but its liability is limited under Par. 4 of said contract providing: “that its liability “shall not exceed one thousand (P1,000.00) pesos per guard post”. To quote the contract:
‘Par. 4 — Party of the Second Part (defendant) through the negligence of its guards, after an investigation has been conducted by the Party of the First Part (plaintiff) wherein the Party of the Second Part has been duly represented shall assume full responsibilities for any loss or damages that may occur to any property of the Party of the First Part for which it is accountable, during the watch hours of