Wag kayong maniniwala sa mga hotels when they say they are not liable for your vehicles and belongings when you park in their properties. Malinaw ang batas under the new Civil Code:
ARTICLE 1998. The deposit of effects made by travellers in hotels or inns shall also be regarded as necessary. The keepers of hotels or inns shall be responsible for them as depositaries, provided that notice was given to them, or to their employees, of the effects brought by the guests and that, on the part of the latter, they take the precautions which said hotel-keepers or their substitutes advised relative to the care and vigilance of their effects. (1783)
ARTICLE 1999. The hotel-keeper is liable for the vehicles, animals and articles which have been introduced or placed in the annexes of the hotel. (n)
ARTICLE 2000. The responsibility referred to in the two preceding articles shall include the loss of, or injury to the personal property of the guests caused by the servants or employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well as by strangers; but not that which may proceed from any force majeure. The fact that travellers are constrained to rely on the vigilance of the keeper of the hotel or inn shall be considered in determining the degree of care required of him. (1784a)
Waivers of these rights are void:
ARTICLE 6. Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. (4a)
The hotel is liable for the damages without prejudice to their right to go after the actual offender. @seantristan_
Bookmark for future reference. 🔖
This is a very informative discussion tonight on #InsiderPodcast. Hinihintay ko ito eh. Parang maha-highblood na si EL. They were trying to explain the relevance of SenRi's questions.
Galing ng explanation. Bit lengthy ang vids but nice watch.
#WinRi
Watch the full episode here:
https://t.co/o5lGO39kmH
NAGUGULUHAN NA SI ROBIN 😭😭😭 KASI DAW MAY NAG OOBJECT AT MAY MAGTATANONG HABANG SUMASAGOT YUNG WITNESS 😭😭😭 UWI KA NA MUNA BE PAHINGA KA NA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
In case of People vs. Lastimosa, G.R. No. 265758, 03 February 2025, the Supreme Court held:
“A photocopy, being a duplicate, is admissible to the same extent as the original…
…absent any genuine question as to the authenticity of the original or a showing that it is unjust or inequitable to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.”
#Schooled
🚨 This is what distinguishes a veteran lawyer like Atty. Ligutan from lawyers like Atty. CJ Narvasa, who objected to a question on the ground of hearsay.
Ligutan said the exception to hearsay: the doctrine of independently relevant statement.
GALING! 👏
#ConvictSara