Short answer. No. Something delivered closed and sealed must come back in the same condition, and if the seal or lock is broken the keeper's fault is presumed — he has to prove otherwise. Whatever the cause, he is bound to keep the contents secret.
What the law says
When the thing deposited is delivered closed and sealed, the depositary must return it in the same condition, and he shall be liable for damages should the seal or lock be broken through his fault. Fault on the part of the depositary is presumed, unless there is proof to the contrary.
Civil Code, Article 1981 — Sealed Deposits. Read the full provision →
The duty, and who has to prove what
Handing something over closed and sealed says everything about the arrangement: the keeper is to hold it, not to look inside it. So the item must be returned in the same condition, and a broken seal or lock makes the keeper liable for damages where it happened through his fault. The sentence that decides most real disputes is the next one — fault is presumed. You do not have to reconstruct how the box came to be open. He has to show it was not his doing. Anyone accepting a sealed deposit as a favour should understand that this is the position he is taking on.
Arguing about what was inside
The hard question is never the seal; it is the contents. Once a sealed container has been forced open, the depositor is the only one who can say what was in it, and the Code accepts his statement of the value where the forcible opening is imputable to the depositary and there is no proof to the contrary. That is a powerful protection, and the Code balances it in the same breath: the courts may pass upon the credibility of the depositor with respect to the value he claims. A figure that does not match the person's circumstances, or that grows with each retelling, will not survive that scrutiny.
The secrecy obligation survives everything
There is one duty that does not depend on fault at all. When the seal or lock is broken, with or without the depositary's fault, he must keep the secret of the deposit. So a keeper whose house was burgled, or who opened the container in circumstances he can properly justify, is still not free to discuss, photograph or repeat what he saw. This is often the part of the injury that matters most — the documents, the personal papers, the family records. It is a distinct obligation with its own consequences, and it is worth stating in your demand letter separately from any claim about the value of the contents.
When opening it is not a breach
The rule is not absolute. A keeper who is authorised by the depositor may of course open the container, and the law treats him as authorised where the key was delivered to him, or where the depositor's own instructions about the deposit cannot be carried out without opening it. Emergency handling and lawful process are likewise different situations from a keeper who simply became curious. If you want no room for argument, hand over the item sealed, without the key, with written instructions that require no access, and note the condition of the seal in a receipt signed by both of you at the time of delivery.
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.
- Marina Port Services vs. American Home Assurance Corporation, G.R. No. 201822, August 12, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →