Fitness First Club liable for member’s stolen items—Court of Appeals
By Tetch TorresINQUIRER.net
MANILA, Philippines—The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC) holding Fitness First Club Inc. liable for stolen items of its member.
In 17-page decision dated July 2, 2012 released to the public Wednesday, the appeals court 9th decision through Associate Justice Antonio Villamor said Fitness First cannot escape liability by saying that the Application Form and Club Rules, which was signed by every member upon enrollment states that it cannot be held liable for losses.
The appeals court said that the provision in the membership agreement as well as the notices posted on its walls run contrary to the provision of Article 2003 of the Civil Code. The said provision states that “the hotel keeper cannot free himself from responsibility by posting notices to the effect that he is not liable for the articles brought by the guest. Any stipulation between the hotel-keeper and the guest whereby the responsibility of the former…is suppressed or diminished shall be void.”
The appeals court explained that a health and wellness center like Fitness First is akin to those engaged in hotel and common carrier businesses which are imbued with public interest.
“Fitness First, being a health club establishment is clearly bound to provide not only a comfortable working-out atmosphere for its members but also a security to their persons and belongings,” the court said.
The case stemmed when in 2006, Atty. Rommel Delos Reyes complained of stolen office uniform, a Nokia 6600 mobile phone, wallet containing P3,000, calling cards and identification cards at the management of Fitness First at Robinsons Place Manila. The manager, however said they cannot be held liable citing the provision in the membership agreement and notices posted on its walls.
Delos Reyes terminated his membership and filed a complaint against the health club before the lower court, which ruled in his favor.
The health club appealed the case.
The appeals court said it gives great weight to the findings of the lower court and echoed its ruling that Fitness First should have conducted an in-house investigation since it admitted that it has a master key that could open all lockers.
Since Delos Reyes’ locker was not forcibly opened, the court noted that it is possible that an employee could have opened the locker using the master key.
The law in turn does not allow its responsibility to the public to be negated or diluted by any contrary stipulation in so-called undertakings that ordinarily appear in prepared forms imposed on their guests and members as in this case
“Fitness First’s utter disregard of the theft of its member’s personal belongings deposited in its locker and lackadaisical attitude on the reported loss constitutes negligence and dereliction of its duties and responsibilities as operator of a health and wellness establishment,” the appeals court said.
It affirmed the award for damages worth more than P136,000 in favor of Delos Reyes.
Follow Us
Recent Stories:
Short URL: http://business.inquirer.net/?p=70393
Tags: Article 2003 of the Civil Code , Attorney Rommel delos Reyes , Consumer Issues , Court of Appeals , Fitness First Club Inc. , Fitness First Robinsons Ermita , Makati City Regional Trial Court
