Short answer. No. Article 1752 of the Civil Code makes clear that even when you and the carrier have agreed on a liability cap, the carrier is still disputably presumed to have been negligent if your goods are lost, destroyed, or deteriorated. You do not have to prove negligence — the carrier must rebut the presumption.
What the law says
Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of the common carrier in the vigilance over the goods, the common carrier is disputably presumed to have been negligent in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration.
Civil Code, Article 1752 — Presumption Survives a Limitation. Read the full provision →
What the presumption of negligence means for shippers
The Civil Code imposes a disputable presumption of negligence on common carriers whenever goods are lost, destroyed, or deteriorated while in their custody. A disputable presumption is one that stands as true unless the carrier overcomes it with contrary evidence. This means that as a shipper, you do not need to open by proving what went wrong — the law starts from the assumption that something did go wrong on the carrier's side. The burden shifts to the carrier to show it exercised extraordinary diligence.
Why a liability cap does not remove the presumption
Article 1752 deals specifically with a situation where the parties have contracted for a reduced ceiling on liability. The law is unambiguous: even when such an agreement exists, the presumption of negligence survives. The cap affects only how much you can recover, not the threshold question of who must explain the loss. A carrier cannot use a liability-limiting clause as a shield that also relieves it of accountability for what happened to your goods. The two are separate issues: the quantum of recovery and the allocation of proof.
How the carrier can rebut the presumption
Because the presumption is disputable, the carrier can defeat it by proving that it exercised the degree of care the law requires. For common carriers, that standard is extraordinary diligence — a higher standard than the ordinary care expected of private parties. The carrier may also show that the loss fell within one of the recognized exceptions, such as a natural disaster, an act of a public enemy, the negligence of the shipper themselves, or the inherent nature of the goods. These defenses are for the carrier to raise and establish — not for you to disprove at the outset.
What this means in practice
If your goods arrive damaged or fail to arrive at all, the starting position under Philippine law favors you. You show the delivery contract, show the loss, and the carrier must then explain why it is not liable. The agreed liability cap may limit your recovery to the ceiling you contracted for, but it does not change who carries the burden of explaining what happened. Review your bill of lading or freight contract carefully — particularly any declared value clause — since those may affect how much the cap permits you to recover.
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.
- Private Hospitals Association of the Philipines, Inc. (PHAPI) Represented by Dr. Rustico Jimenez vs. Hon. Salvador Medialdea Executive Secretary and Acting Secretary of DOH…, G.R. No. 234448, November 6, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →