Short answer. Possibly yes — but only if the incident qualifies as an act of a public enemy in war under Article 1734. That exemption covers armed conflict, whether international or civil, not ordinary robbery. If the hijacking was common criminal activity rather than a wartime act, the carrier likely remains liable.
What the law says
Common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods, unless the same is due to any of the following causes only: (1) Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster or calamity; (2) Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil; (3) Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods; (4) The character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers; (5) Order or act of competent public authority.
Civil Code, Article 1734 — The Five Exempting Causes for Common Carriers. Read the full provision →
The carrier's general duty and the five exceptions
Under Article 1734, common carriers are responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods they transport. The law does not give them the option to simply claim bad luck or unexpected events as an excuse. There are only five recognised causes that can break this responsibility, and they are listed exhaustively: natural disasters, acts of public enemies in war, acts or omissions of the shipper, defects in the goods themselves, and orders of competent public authority. Unless the carrier can slot the loss into one of those five categories, it remains liable.
What the public enemy exemption actually covers
The second exemption — act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil — has a specific and narrow meaning. "Public enemy" refers to forces or groups engaged in armed conflict against the state or on behalf of a belligerent power, not to ordinary criminals or bandits. A civil disturbance might qualify if it rises to the level of armed civil conflict or insurgency, but an ordinary hold-up by criminals during a period of social unrest is unlikely to meet that standard. The distinction matters enormously: carriers have successfully argued this exemption in situations of genuine armed conflict, but courts have been reluctant to extend it to routine highway robbery.
The carrier must also prove it was not negligent
Even when one of the five exempting causes is present, a carrier cannot simply point to the cause and walk away. The Civil Code places a high duty of care on common carriers — they are treated as being under an obligation to exercise extraordinary diligence. If the carrier itself contributed to the loss through negligence — for example, by using an insufficiently secured vehicle, ignoring credible threat intelligence, or failing to take reasonable precautions given known conditions along the route — it may still be held partially or fully liable even if an exempting cause was also in play.
What this means for your situation
Whether the armed hijacking that took your goods qualifies as an act of a public enemy in a civil war or disturbance is a factual and legal question that depends on the specific circumstances of the incident. If it was an act of organised insurgents or rebel forces engaged in armed conflict, the carrier has a better argument. If it was armed robbery by private criminals — even in a chaotic environment — the exemption is much harder to establish. Before accepting the carrier's position that it bears no liability, it is worth examining both the nature of the incident and whether the carrier exercised all reasonable precautions under the circumstances.