Short answer. Not outright. Article 1742 says that even where the packing or the containers were faulty, the carrier must still exercise due diligence to forestall or lessen the loss. Bad packaging may cut what you recover, but a carrier that accepted an obviously defective package cannot simply walk away.
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 →
What the law says
If the shipper or owner merely contributed to the loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods, the proximate cause thereof being the negligence of the common carrier, the latter shall be liable in damages, which however, shall be equitably reduced.
Civil Code, Article 1741 — Shipper's Contributory Negligence. Read the full provision →
Faulty packing is not a complete answer
Article 1742 is short and squarely aimed at this excuse: 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. The defect in your packaging is treated as a circumstance the carrier must handle, not as a cause that ends its duty. Fragile, badly crated or leaking cargo calls for more care in stowage and handling, not less.
Accepting the goods without objection matters
A carrier that inspected the cartons, saw what it was taking, and issued a clean receipt is in a poor position to argue afterwards that the packaging was always inadequate. If the defect was apparent on receipt, the honest response was to refuse the shipment, require repacking, or note the exception on the bill of lading. Doing none of those and carrying anyway is a choice to transport goods in the condition the carrier saw, with the handling that condition required.
Where your packing genuinely contributed
Sometimes the shipper really is partly to blame, and the Code does not pretend otherwise. Article 1741 provides that where the shipper or owner merely contributed to the loss, the proximate cause being the carrier's negligence, the carrier is still liable in damages, which however, shall be equitably reduced. That is the realistic outcome in many packaging disputes: not a defence, but a discount. The size of the reduction turns on how much of the damage is fairly attributable to the packing rather than to what the carrier did with it.
The evidence that decides it
Photographs of the goods as packed, taken before handover, are worth more than any argument made later. Add the receipt or bill of lading and check whether the carrier noted any exception on it, the packing list and any packing specification the carrier itself supplied, and photographs of the goods and the container on arrival. Where the damage pattern points to crushing, wet or rough handling rather than to a weak carton, that shows in the pictures. Raise the claim in writing promptly, before the packaging is thrown out.
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 →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1742 — Defective Packing
- Civil Code, Article 1741 — Shipper's Contributory Negligence
- Civil Code, Article 1735 — Presumption of Negligence (Goods)