Short answer. No, not by itself. Even if the loss, destruction, or deterioration is caused by the character of the goods or the faulty nature of the packing or containers, the carrier must still exercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss — faulty packaging does not automatically clear them.
What the law says
Even if the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods should be caused by the character of the goods, or the faulty nature of the packing or of the containers, the common carrier must exercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss.
Civil Code, Article 1742 — Defective Packing. Read the full provision →
Bad packaging shifts the story, not the outcome automatically
A carrier pointing to your packaging is not raising a made-up excuse — faulty packing genuinely can be a cause of loss or damage the law recognizes. But recognizing it as a cause is not the same as treating it as a full defense. The article says plainly that even if the loss is caused by the character of the goods, or the faulty nature of the packing or containers, the common carrier must exercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss. The carrier's own duty does not vanish just because your packaging played a role.
The duty is to forestall or lessen, not just to notice the problem
The obligation this article imposes is active, not passive. "Forestall" means the carrier is expected to try to prevent the loss from happening in the first place, and "lessen" means that where prevention was not fully possible, the carrier is expected to have reduced how much damage occurred. A carrier who simply loaded obviously poorly packed goods without taking any precautions, and later points to the packaging as the sole cause, has not necessarily satisfied this duty.
Due diligence is the standard the carrier still has to meet
This article does not spell out exactly what steps a carrier must take in every situation — that depends on the specific goods, the visible condition of the packing, and what a carrier exercising due diligence would reasonably have done under those circumstances. What it does establish is that the existence of faulty packaging shifts the inquiry to whether the carrier met that standard, rather than ending the inquiry outright in the carrier's favor.
What this means if you are disputing a damage claim
If a carrier is relying on your packaging to deny responsibility entirely, this article gives you a real basis to push back: the packaging issue is, at most, one part of the picture. Whether the carrier still bears responsibility depends on what due diligence they actually exercised once the risk from the packaging was apparent, and that is a question of fact specific to your shipment, not something either side can resolve by pointing to the packaging alone.
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.
- Unitrans International Forwarders, Inc. vs. Insurance Company of North America, et al, G.R. No. 203865, March 13, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Iron Bulk Shipping Philippines, Co., Ltd., vs. Remington Industrial Sales Corporation, G.R. No. 136960, December 8, 2003 — read the decision on LawPhil →