Short answer. No, not by pointing to the typhoon alone. The Civil Code requires the natural disaster to have been the proximate and only cause of the loss, and the carrier still has to prove it exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during, and after the storm. A typhoon that struck is not, by itself, a full defense.
What the law says
In order that the common carrier may be exempted from responsibility, the natural disaster must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss. However, the common carrier must exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize loss before, during and after the occurrence of flood, storm or other natural disaster in order that the common carrier may be exempted from liability for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods.
Civil Code, Article 1739 — Natural Disaster as Exempting Cause. Read the full provision →
The storm has to be the whole story, not just part of it
Article 1739 sets a demanding standard before a natural disaster excuses a carrier: the disaster must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss. If the carrier's own delay, poor stowage, an unseaworthy vessel, an overloaded truck, or any other contributing fault played a role alongside the typhoon, the disaster is no longer the only cause, and the exemption this article offers does not apply. "A typhoon happened" is the beginning of the carrier's defense, not the end of it.
Due diligence has to run through the whole event
Even where the typhoon genuinely was the sole cause, the carrier still carries a separate burden: it must show it exercised due diligence to prevent or minimize loss before, during and after the storm. This covers the full timeline — did the carrier take reasonable precautions once a storm warning was known, did it act sensibly while the storm was happening, and did it take reasonable steps afterward to salvage or protect what could still be saved. Silence on any of those three periods leaves a gap in the defense.
The same duty applies beyond weather events
The article notes that this same due-diligence duty applies where the carrier instead points to an act of a public enemy, elsewhere recognized as a possible exempting cause, rather than a natural disaster. The pattern is consistent: naming a recognized exempting event is only the first step, and the carrier still has to demonstrate it did what a diligent carrier would have done around that event to protect the cargo.
What to ask for if a carrier is blaming the weather
Ask the carrier directly for what it actually did before the typhoon hit — any advance warning it had and how it responded, what precautions were taken while cargo was in its custody during the storm, and what steps it took afterward to recover or protect the goods. A carrier that simply asserts "typhoon" without answering these points has not carried its burden under this article. Gather your shipping documents, any correspondence about weather warnings, and the condition report on your cargo, and bring them to a lawyer to assess whether the carrier's diligence actually holds up.
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.
- Transimex Co. vs. Mafre Asian Insurance Corp, G.R. No. 190271, September 14, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Leamer Industries, Inc. vs. Malayan Insurance Co., Inc, G.R. No. 161745, September 30, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Napoleon Sesante, et al, G.R. No. 172682, July 27, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Central Shipping Company, Inc. vs. Insurance Company of North America, G.R. No. 150751, September 20, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →