Short answer. Yes. Even though an act of the public enemy is one of the recognized exempting causes for a common carrier, the carrier is still required to exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during, and after the event, and only escapes liability if that act was the proximate and only cause of the loss.
What the law says
The same duty is incumbent upon the common carrier in case of an act of the public enemy referred to in article 1734, No. 2.
Civil Code, Article 1739 — Natural Disaster as Exempting Cause. Read the full provision →
Act of the public enemy as an exempting cause
Common carriers are, as a rule, responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods they carry, unless the loss falls under one of the causes the law recognizes as exempting. Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil, is one of those five recognized causes, alongside natural disaster, an act or omission of the shipper, defects in the goods or packing, and an order of competent public authority. On its face, this exempts the carrier from the ordinary presumption of fault when a loss traces to that cause.
Exemption is not automatic — diligence still has to be shown
That exemption does not excuse the carrier from acting. The law requires the natural disaster or public-enemy event to have been the proximate and only cause of the loss, and separately requires the carrier to exercise due diligence to prevent or minimize the loss before, during, and after the occurrence. The duty spelled out for natural disasters extends by its own terms to an act of the public enemy, so a carrier facing piracy or a similar attack cannot simply point to the event and walk away from liability.
What this means for a cargo owner
If your goods were lost to pirates or another act of the public enemy, the carrier is not automatically off the hook. It still has to show that it took reasonable precautions beforehand, responded reasonably while the event was unfolding, and acted reasonably afterward to limit the damage, and that the attack itself — not some failure on the carrier's part — was the sole and proximate cause of the loss. If the carrier's own negligence contributed to the loss, or if it failed to exercise that diligence, the exemption does not apply and liability remains.
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 1734 — The Five Exempting Causes for Common Carriers