Short answer. Yes. The Civil Code establishes that when goods are lost and none of the specific exempting causes apply, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence. The burden falls squarely on the carrier to prove it was not at fault.
What the law says
In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in article 1733.
Civil Code, Article 1735 — Presumption of Negligence (Goods). Read the full provision →
The presumption and what triggers it
Article 1735 sets the default rule: when goods entrusted to a common carrier are lost, destroyed, or deteriorated, the carrier is presumed negligent. This presumption applies in all cases except the five specific exempting causes listed in the preceding article — which include natural disasters, acts of war, acts of the shipper, inherent defects in the goods, and acts of public authority. If the carrier cannot identify one of those five specific grounds, the presumption kicks in automatically. You do not need to prove the carrier was careless; you simply need to show the goods were in the carrier's care and are now lost.
What the carrier must prove to escape liability
To rebut the presumption, the carrier must affirmatively prove it observed extraordinary diligence — the highest standard of care, as required by Article 1733. Extraordinary diligence means the carrier did everything that could reasonably be done, given the nature of the goods and the circumstances of the transport. This is a demanding standard. Saying that the carrier followed its usual procedures, or that it had no indication anything was wrong, is generally not enough. The carrier must demonstrate specific precautions taken, how the goods were handled and secured, and why, despite all of that, the loss occurred.
This reversal of burden is deliberate policy
The burden-shifting in Article 1735 reflects a deliberate policy choice. A shipper who entrusts goods to a carrier has limited ability to monitor how those goods are handled during transit. The carrier, on the other hand, has complete control over and knowledge of what happens to the goods from the moment they are received. It is therefore the carrier that is best positioned to explain what happened — and the law places the obligation to give that explanation squarely on the carrier. Requiring the shipper to reconstruct events it had no access to would be both unfair and practically impossible.
Strengthening your claim as the shipper
Even with the presumption in your favor, your claim will be stronger with documentation. Keep a copy of the bill of lading, packing list, and any evidence of the condition of the goods when they were delivered to the carrier — photos, inspection reports, weight records. When the loss is discovered, report it promptly to the carrier in writing and request a formal response. File within any contractual notice periods. The carrier may try to invoke one of the specific exemptions (natural disaster, inherent defect) even without clear evidence; your documentation will make it harder to advance unsupported claims.
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.
- Kuwait Airways Corporation vs. The Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., and Tokio, G.R. No. 213931, November 17, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation vs. Unknown Owner of the Vessel MV "National Honor", et al, G.R. No. 161833, July 8, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- C.V. Gaspar Salvage & Lighterage Corporation vs. LG Insurance Company, Ltd., (United States Branch), G.R. No. 206892 / G.R. No. 207035, February 3, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Unitrans International Forwarders, Inc. vs. Insurance Company of North America, et al, G.R. No. 203865, March 13, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →