Short answer. Yes. Article 1163 sets the diligence of a good father of a family only as the default standard, and expressly allows the law or the parties' own stipulation to require a different one. Parties are free to agree on a stricter standard, such as extraordinary diligence, and once agreed, that higher standard becomes the enforceable measure of care.
What the law says
unless the law or the stipulation of the parties requires another standard of care
Civil Code, Article 1163 — Diligence of a Good Father of a Family. Read the full provision →
The default is not the only option
Article 1163 obliges anyone bound to deliver something to take care of it with ordinary diligence, but that is a fallback rule, not a ceiling. The same sentence that sets the default also carves out room for the law or the contract itself to demand more. This structure mirrors how the Code treats several other default rules: it supplies a baseline for situations where the parties said nothing, while leaving them free to negotiate something stricter if the value or fragility of the goods warrants it.
Raising the bar by agreement
Because the exception is written directly into the article, a clause requiring extraordinary diligence, or spelling out specific safekeeping measures like insurance, secure storage, or regular inspection, is enforceable on its own terms. The custodian who accepts such a clause cannot later fall back on the lower ordinary standard to excuse a loss. Courts will generally give effect to the higher standard as written, since nothing in the article suggests any cap on how demanding a stipulated standard of care may be.
Consequence of breaching the higher standard
If the goods are lost or damaged and the custodian only met the ordinary standard while the contract demanded more, he is still in breach, because the measure of fault is whatever standard the parties validly agreed to, not the statutory default. This makes the exact wording of a care-of-goods clause worth reading closely before signing, since agreeing to a heightened standard also means accepting a correspondingly narrower set of excuses if something eventually goes wrong with the property.
Where this comes up in practice
Contracts involving valuable or fragile goods, such as consigned jewelry, artwork on loan, or a vehicle left for safekeeping, often spell out a heightened standard precisely because ordinary diligence would leave the owner exposed to risks the parties want covered more strictly. A warehousing or storage agreement might, for example, require climate control, round-the-clock security, or insurance coverage as part of the agreed standard of care, and once the custodian signs on to those terms, falling short of them is a breach even if an ordinary custodian elsewhere would not have been at fault for the same lapse.
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.
- Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, in Corpora Ted vs. Edsel B. Lumawag, G.R. No. 222897, February 22, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sister Pilar Versoza vs. People of the Philippines, Michelina S. Aguirre-Olondriz, Pedro Aguirre, G.R. No. 184535, September 3, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1163 — Diligence of a Good Father of a Family
- Civil Code, Article 1173 — What Negligence Is