Mabini Hall - Access to Justice

In the news recently, an Asian Development Bank (ADB) employee lost her valuables when thieves broke into her sports utility vehicle parked in the lot between the ADB Building and the Podium Mall. The husband and wife victims lost their personal belongings including a laptop. The car park company, Secure-Citiparking Philippines Corp., has promised to investigate the incident but remains firm that they are not responsible for her loss. It seems that it is insecure on this security breach.Under the law, when a vehicle is parked at a parking lot, a contract is created between the parties. Especially in this case when the company holds itself out as a car park operator and charges a fee by the hour in fact. It is in the nature of a deposit with the vehicle left in the care and custody of the company.

The immediate consequence is that it is liable for the loss of the belongings including the loss of the vehicle. It is not conceivable for a company to claim that it is not liable for a vehicle stolen from its premises. Imagine the owner returning to the parking lot and not finding his car. Or finding it with a missing tire, bumper or windshield.

Look closely at the parking ticket issued. It is the binding agreement and contains the terms and conditions of the contract in fine print.

What about the paragraph and signs you read about the company not being responsible for loss of belongings and that the same is the look-out of the owner? As a matter of law and public policy, such notice is void and of no effect. Meaning its effect is only cautionary and precautionary and does not void the car park company’s liability.

That the company will investigate and introduce other measures to reduce isolated incidents at the car park is not an excuse. It is after the event of loss and in no way changes the contractual relationship established between the parties.

Neither is it a defense that the company is a “professional” car park operator with 800 car parks throughout Australia, Southeast Asia and the Middle East and “manages prestigious establishments such as the Sydney and Melbourne Airports in Australia.” The fact is a vehicle owner lost the valuables inside the car park.

Worse, if the car lock or any part of the car was forcibly damaged or destroyed to gain access, it is not simple theft but a case of robbery which is a graver offense.

But wouldn’t this open a can of abuses for vehicle owners to claim loss of valuables to which the car park operator was not informed or put on notice? It might send a dangerous precedent to pay for such items and drive car park operators to bankruptcy given the number of honest people around. Maybe this is what the company is wary of. This is also true for hotel and restaurant owners who take deposit of vehicles, articles of clothing, etc. But this does detract from their responsibility for the incident. The truth or falsity of the matter should be taken on a case-to-case basis instead of denying any and all liability.

Of course vehicle owners need to exercise prudence and common sense too to avoid hassles, inconveniences and the loss of material and emotional stuff whether driving on the road, maintaining the vehicle in tip-top condition and parking it safely. It may be best not to leave valuables inside the car though there are situations as in this case when one can’t help but do so. Thus the law provides the answer. The law however does not mandate the parking fees charged but leaves it to the market.

It cannot be denied that parking in a pay parking is a lot safer than street parking. But maybe not in this instance.