Short answer. Usually not. A deposit exists only when safekeeping the item is the contract's principal purpose. When you hand a phone to a shop for repair, its main obligation is to fix the device, not to store it, so the arrangement is a contract for a piece of work rather than a deposit.
What the law says
If the safekeeping of the thing delivered is not the principal purpose of the contract, there is no deposit but some other contract.
Civil Code, Article 1962 — Deposit Defined. Read the full provision →
Two Sentences, Two Different Tests
Article 1962's first sentence defines deposit broadly: it is constituted the moment someone receives another's thing with the obligation to keep it safely and return it later. Its second sentence narrows that definition immediately afterward — if safekeeping is not the contract's principal purpose, the arrangement is "some other contract," not a deposit, even though one party is physically holding onto the other's property the entire time. Courts read the two sentences together rather than stopping at the first, since doing otherwise would turn nearly every service contract that happens to involve handing over an item — a car left for an oil change, a dress dropped off for alterations — into a deposit by accident.
Repair, Not Custody
When a shop accepts a phone to replace its cracked screen, the parties' real bargain is the repair work itself; safekeeping the device is only incidental to performing that job properly. This makes the arrangement a contract for a piece of work under the Civil Code's provisions on obligations to do something, which is governed by different rules on care, delay, and payment than the deposit articles use. A warranty repair works the same way: the obligation is to restore the product to working order, and holding the unit while a part is sourced does not turn that promise into a custodial one.
Where the Line Actually Falls
Compare this to a mall's paid storage locker, whose entire purpose is holding your bag safely until you come back for it later — that genuinely is a deposit. The real test is not whether the other party happens to be physically holding your property at some point, but whether keeping it safe was the actual reason you handed it over to them in the first place. A valet who parks your car for the evening sits closer to a deposit for the same reason, since watching over the vehicle until you return is the valet's entire job, not something incidental to doing anything else to it.
Why the Label Matters
The distinction affects what you can demand if something goes wrong. A depositary's core duty is safekeeping and prompt return on request; a repair shop's core duty is to perform the agreed work competently, with any damage to your item while in their custody analyzed under the separate rules governing contractors and workmen, not under the deposit provisions of the Code. Framing a complaint correctly — negligent workmanship rather than a breach of custodial duty — changes which provisions and which measure of damages actually apply to your claim.
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.
- Bank Of The Philippine Islands vs. Jesusa P. Reyes, et al, G.R. No. 157177, February 11, 2008 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Superlines Transportation Co., Inc. vs. PNCC, et al, G.R. No. 169596, March 28, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →