Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 156 views

    Sia Vs Ca

    Uploaded by

    shai shai
    Plaintiff Luzon Sia rented a safety deposit box from Security Bank and Trust Co. where he stored his stamp collection. In 1985 and 1986, floods entered the bank and damaged Sia's stamp collection. Security Bank denied Sia's claim for compensation. The Court ruled that the contract for the safety deposit box was a lease, not a deposit. As the bank was aware of the floods and failed to notify Sia so he could retrieve his stamps, the Court found the bank negligent and liable for damages. The provisions in the lease agreement exempting the bank from liability due to its own negligence were invalid. The Court ordered Security Bank to pay damages to Sia.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sia Vs Ca

    Uploaded by

    shai shai
    156 views3 pages
    Plaintiff Luzon Sia rented a safety deposit box from Security Bank and Trust Co. where he stored his stamp collection. In 1985 and 1986, floods entered the bank and damaged Sia's stamp collection. Security Bank denied Sia's claim for compensation. The Court ruled that the contract for the safety deposit box was a lease, not a deposit. As the bank was aware of the floods and failed to notify Sia so he could retrieve his stamps, the Court found the bank negligent and liable for damages. The provisions in the lease agreement exempting the bank from liability due to its own negligence were invalid. The Court ordered Security Bank to pay damages to Sia.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    Sia vs ca

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Plaintiff Luzon Sia rented a safety deposit box from Security Bank and Trust Co. where he stored his stamp collection. In 1985 and 1986, floods entered the bank and damaged Sia's stamp collection. Security Bank denied Sia's claim for compensation. The Court ruled that the contract for the safety deposit box was a lease, not a deposit. As the bank was aware of the floods and failed to notify Sia so he could retrieve his stamps, the Court found the bank negligent and liable for damages. The provisions in the lease agreement exempting the bank from liability due to its own negligence were invalid. The Court ordered Security Bank to pay damages to Sia.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    156 views3 pages

    Sia Vs Ca

    Uploaded by

    shai shai
    Plaintiff Luzon Sia rented a safety deposit box from Security Bank and Trust Co. where he stored his stamp collection. In 1985 and 1986, floods entered the bank and damaged Sia's stamp collection. Security Bank denied Sia's claim for compensation. The Court ruled that the contract for the safety deposit box was a lease, not a deposit. As the bank was aware of the floods and failed to notify Sia so he could retrieve his stamps, the Court found the bank negligent and liable for damages. The provisions in the lease agreement exempting the bank from liability due to its own negligence were invalid. The Court ordered Security Bank to pay damages to Sia.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Sia vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No.

    102970, May 13, 1990


    Contract of the use of a safety deposit box of a bank is not
    a deposit but a lease under Sec 72, A of General Banking
    Act. Accordingly, it should have lost no time in notifying
    the petitioner in order that the box could have been
    opened to retrieve the stamps, thus saving the same from
    further deterioration and loss. The banks negligence
    aggravated the injury or damage to the stamp collection..
    Facts:

    Plaintiff Luzon Sia rented a safety deposit box of Security Bank

    and Trust Co. (Security Bank) at its Binondo Branch wherein he placed his
    collection of stamps. The said safety deposit box leased by the plaintiff was
    at the bottom or at the lowest level of the safety deposit boxes of the
    defendant bank. During the floods that took place in 1985 and 1986,
    floodwater entered into the defendant banks premises, seeped into the
    safety deposit box leased by the plaintiff and caused, according damage to
    his stamps collection. Security Bank rejected the plaintiffs claim for
    compensation for his damaged stamps collection.
    Sia, thereafter, instituted an action for damages against the defendant
    bank. Security Bank contended that its contract with the Sia over safety
    deposit box was one of lease and not of deposit and, therefore, governed
    by the lease agreement which should be the applicable law; the destruction
    of the plaintiffs stamps collection was due to a calamity beyond obligation
    on its part to notify the plaintiff about the floodwaters that inundated its
    premises at Binondo branch which allegedly seeped into the safety deposit
    box leased to the plaintiff. The trial court rendered in favor of plaintiff Sia
    and ordered Sia to pay damages.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the Bank is liable for negligence.

    Held: Contract of the use of a safety deposit box of a bank is not a deposit
    but a lease. Section 72 of the General Banking Act [R.A. 337, as amended]
    pertinently provides: In addition to the operations specifically authorized
    elsewhere in this Act, banking institutions other than building and loan
    associations may perform the following services (a) Receive in custody
    funds, documents, and valuable objects, and rent safety deposit boxes for
    the safequarding of such effects.
    As correctly held by the trial court, Security Bank was guilty of negligence.
    The banks negligenceaggravated the injury or damage to the stamp
    collection. SBTC was aware of the floods of 1985 and 1986; it also knew
    that the floodwaters inundated the room where the safe deposit box was
    located. In view thereof, it should have lost no time in notifying the
    petitioner in order that the box could have been opened to retrieve the
    stamps, thus saving the same from further deterioration and loss. In this
    respect, it failed to exercise the reasonable care and prudence expected of
    a good father of a family, thereby becoming a party to the aggravation of
    the injury or loss. Accordingly, the aforementioned fourth characteristic of a
    fortuitous event is absent. Article 1170 of the Civil Code, which reads
    Those who in the performance of their obligation are guilty of fraud,
    negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor
    thereof, are liable for damages is applicable. Hence, the petition was
    granted.
    The provisions contended by Security Bank in the lease agreement which
    are meant to exempt SBTC from any liability for damage, loss or
    destruction of the contents of the safety deposit box which may arise from

    its own agents fraud, negligence or delay must be stricken down for being
    contrary to law and public policy.

    You might also like