Short answer. Only if the storm was the proximate and only cause of the loss, and the carrier still shows it did what it could before, during and after. A typhoon is a defence, not an excuse — bad stowage, a late sailing or a slow response defeats it.
What the law says
the natural disaster must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss
Civil Code, Article 1739 — Natural Disaster as Exempting Cause. Read the full provision →
What the law says
If the common carrier negligently incurs in delay in transporting the goods, a natural disaster shall not free such carrier from responsibility.
Civil Code, Article 1740 — Delay Defeats the Natural-Disaster Defense. Read the full provision →
The storm must be the only cause
Article 1739 sets the bar at the start: for exemption, the natural disaster must have been the proximate and only cause of the loss. Read only literally, because that is how it operates. If the weather did the damage but the cargo was poorly lashed, the hatches were left unsecured, the vessel was overloaded or it sailed into a forecast storm, the disaster is no longer the sole cause and the defence collapses. Contributing carrier negligence does not merely reduce the claim here; it removes the exemption altogether.
Diligence is owed before, during and after
Even a carrier facing a genuinely sole-cause typhoon is not finished. The same article requires it to exercise due diligence to prevent or minimise loss before, during and after the occurrence of flood, storm or other natural disaster. The 'after' is the limb most often failed. Cargo that survives the storm but rots on an unattended deck for days, or is left in flooded holds when it could have been discharged and dried, is lost through the carrier's inaction rather than through the weather, and the carrier answers for that.
A carrier already running late cannot invoke it
There is a further trap for the carrier, and it is a common one in the archipelago's shipping season. Article 1740 provides that if the common carrier negligently incurs in delay in transporting the goods, a natural disaster shall not free such carrier from responsibility. A vessel that should have sailed a week earlier does not get to point at the storm it met because it did not. So the sailing schedule and the reasons for any departure from it are often more important to the claim than the meteorology.
What to ask for when this defence is raised
Do not argue about the weather; the storm probably was real. Ask instead for the material that shows what the carrier did about it. The booking and the promised sailing date against the actual one, the stowage and lashing plan, the log or master's report, the weather advisories current when it sailed, and what was done with the cargo once the vessel reached shelter. Those records sit with the carrier, and it is the carrier that must produce them, since the loss is presumed to be its fault until it does.
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 →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1739 — Natural Disaster as Exempting Cause
- Civil Code, Article 1740 — Delay Defeats the Natural-Disaster Defense
- Civil Code, Article 1735 — Presumption of Negligence (Goods)