Short answer. No, not unless your agreement allows it. Unless there is a stipulation to the contrary, the depositary cannot deposit your thing with a third person, and even where it is allowed, the depositary stays liable if they hand it to someone manifestly careless or unfit.
What the law says
Unless there is a stipulation to the contrary, the depositary cannot deposit the thing with a third person.
Civil Code, Article 1973 — No Sub-Deposit Without Consent. Read the full provision →
The default is that your depositary keeps the item personally
When you hand something over for safekeeping, the law's starting assumption is that the person you entrusted it to is the one who keeps it, not whoever they decide to pass it along to. Unless there is a stipulation to the contrary, the depositary cannot deposit the thing with a third person. That default protects you: you chose that particular depositary, presumably because you trusted them, and the law does not let that trust be silently redirected to someone you never agreed to.
A stipulation can change this, but it has to actually exist
The rule bends only where there is an actual agreement allowing sub-deposit — a stipulation to the contrary. Absent that, a depositary who hands your item to a third party without your agreement is acting outside what the deposit contract authorized. Whether such a stipulation exists in your case depends on the terms you and the depositary actually agreed to, not on what would have been convenient for them.
Permission to sub-deposit does not erase the depositary's liability
Even where sub-deposit is allowed, the original depositary is not automatically off the hook. "If deposit with a third person is allowed, the depositary is liable for the loss if he deposited the thing with a person who is manifestly careless or unfit." In other words, permission to sub-deposit is not permission to hand your item to just anyone — the depositary still answers for choosing someone who was obviously the wrong person to trust with it.
Employees are a separate, narrower point
The article also addresses a related but distinct scenario: your depositary's own staff. "The depositary is responsible for the negligence of his employees." This is not about handing your item to an outside third party at all — it covers the depositary's own people, who are acting within the depositary's own operation. If your item was damaged or lost through carelessness by someone working for the depositary, that liability sits with the depositary directly, separate from whatever rules govern sub-deposit with outsiders.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Regina Q. Alba, Joined by Her Husband, Rudolfo D. Alba vs. Nida Arollado, Joined, G.R. No. 237140, October 5, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →