Short answer. Usually yes, if it was genuinely a deposit. Article 1972 obliges the depositary to keep the thing safely and to return it when required. Liability turns on the care owed — a store paid to store goods is held to more than a neighbour doing you an unpaid favour.
What the law says
The depositary is obliged to keep the thing safely and to return it, when required, to the depositor
Civil Code, Article 1972 — Depositary's Duty to Keep and Return. Read the full provision →
What the law says
If the deposit is gratuitous, this fact shall be taken into account in determining the degree of care that the depositary must observe.
Civil Code, Article 1972 — Depositary's Duty to Keep and Return. Read the full provision →
First, is it a deposit at all?
Article 1962 says a deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a thing belonging to another with the obligation of safely keeping it and returning the same — and adds that if safekeeping is not the principal purpose of the contract, there is no deposit but some other contract. That test decides a lot. A bag left at a counter while you shop is a deposit. A watch handed to a repairman is not; safekeeping is incidental to the repair. The distinction matters because a different contract carries different duties.
The duty, and how much care it demands
Article 1972 provides that The depositary is obliged to keep the thing safely and to return it, when required, to the depositor, and closes with a sliding scale: If the deposit is gratuitous, this fact shall be taken into account in determining the degree of care that the depositary must observe. Article 1965 treats a deposit as gratuitous except where agreed otherwise or where the depositary is in the business of storing goods. So a commercial storage operator, a bag counter run as part of a paid service, and a friend keeping a box in his garage are not judged alike. Article 1173 supplies the default measure: the diligence expected of a good father of a family.
Fortuitous events, and when they stop excusing
Article 1174 excuses events that could not be foreseen, or which though foreseen were inevitable — so a genuine act of God may relieve the store. But Article 1979 closes four doors: the depositary is liable for loss through a fortuitous event if it was so stipulated, if he used the thing without permission, if he delayed its return, or if he allowed others to use it. Two others matter in practice. Article 1973 bars him from depositing the thing with a third person without your agreement, and makes him responsible for the negligence of his employees. A theft by staff is therefore the store's problem, not yours.
What settles a claim
Three things decide these disputes. What was handed over and when — the claim stub, receipt, photograph or CCTV still is worth more than any recollection. Whether the depositary was paid, because that sets the standard of care he owed. And how the loss happened, since the store must explain it. Note also Article 1990: if the thing is lost through force majeure or government order and the depositary receives money or another thing in its place, that substitute belongs to you. Make the demand for return in writing, and keep the store's reply — an admission that the item was received is usually the whole battle.
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.
- Joseph Chan, et al. vs. Bonifacio S. Maceda, Jr, G.R. No. 142591, April 30, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1972 — Depositary's Duty to Keep and Return
- Civil Code, Article 1962 — Deposit Defined
- Civil Code, Article 1965 — Deposit Generally Gratuitous
- Civil Code, Article 1973 — No Sub-Deposit Without Consent
- Civil Code, Article 1979 — Liability for Fortuitous Loss