Short answer. No. Article 2003 says 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. A sign is not a contract, and even a signed waiver of that responsibility is void.
What the law says
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.
Civil Code, Article 2003 — Void Waiver of Hotel Liability. Read the full provision →
The notice does nothing
Article 2003 is blunt: 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. The reason is structural. Responsibility for a guest's effects is imposed by law on the keeper of the hotel, not created by agreement, so it cannot be removed by an announcement the guest never accepted. A sign at the reception desk, a line on the room key card, a placard in the car park: none of them is a bargain, and none of them shifts a risk the Code has already allocated.
Nor does a signature
The second sentence of the article goes further than the sign. Any stipulation between the hotel-keeper and the guest suppressing or diminishing the keeper's responsibility for the guest's effects is void — not merely unenforceable, and not curable by putting it in the registration form and having it initialled. This is unusual and deliberate. Ordinary parties may allocate risk as they please, but the Code singles out this relationship because the traveller has no practical choice and must rely on the establishment's vigilance. A waiver clause in the booking terms therefore adds nothing to the hotel's position.
What the hotel can still say
Striking out the sign does not make the hotel an insurer. Article 2002 still relieves the keeper where the loss is due to the acts of the guest, his family, servants or visitors, or arises from the character of the things brought into the hotel. Article 2000 excludes loss proceeding from force majeure, and Article 2001 defines that narrowly: a thief who has entered the hotel is not force majeure unless he acts with arms or through an irresistible force. So the real arguments are about how the loss happened and who let it happen — never about the notice.
Where these signs do bite
Be careful about generalising from a hotel to every counter with a similar sign. The Code's rule voiding the notice is written for hotel-keepers and inns; elsewhere the effect of a posted disclaimer depends on the contract actually made, and a claim stub with printed conditions may form part of what you agreed. Even so, a notice cannot excuse a business from its own negligence, and where the arrangement is a deposit the depositary's duty to keep the thing safely and return it comes from the Code rather than from the sign. Keep the stub, and record what you handed over.
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.
- YHT Realty Corporation, et al. vs. The Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 126780, February 17, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 2003 — Void Waiver of Hotel Liability
- Civil Code, Article 2000 — Scope of Hotel-Keeper Liability
- Civil Code, Article 2001 — Theft Not Force Majeure
- Civil Code, Article 2002 — When the Hotel-Keeper Is Not Liable