Short answer. Yes, up to a point. Under the Civil Code, the carrier's extraordinary responsibility lasts until the goods are actually or constructively delivered to the consignee. Even after arrival, that responsibility continues while the goods sit in the carrier's warehouse, ending only once the consignee is notified and given reasonable time to collect them.
What the law says
The extraordinary responsibility of the common carrier lasts from the time the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of, and received by the carrier for transportation until the same are delivered, actually or constructively, by the carrier to the consignee, or to the person who has a right to receive them, without prejudice to the provisions of article 1738.
Civil Code, Article 1736 — Duration of the Carrier's Responsibility. Read the full provision →
When the carrier's responsibility begins and ends
Article 1736 defines the full span of the carrier's extraordinary responsibility. It begins the moment the goods are unconditionally placed in the possession of the carrier for transportation — not from some later point, and not conditionally. It ends when the goods are delivered, either actually (the consignee physically takes them) or constructively (the carrier has done what is legally equivalent to delivery). Arrival of the vessel at port is not the same as delivery. The goods waiting on the dock are still the carrier's responsibility.
The warehouse extension under Article 1738
Article 1736 explicitly preserves the operation of Article 1738, which extends the carrier's extraordinary liability into the warehouse phase. Even after the goods arrive and are stored in the carrier's warehouse at the destination, the carrier remains fully responsible until the consignee has been advised of the arrival and has had reasonable opportunity thereafter to remove them or otherwise dispose of them. This means two things must happen before the liability ends: proper notification and passage of a reasonable collection window. A carrier that notified the consignee but then suffered a loss before the consignee had a realistic chance to pick up the goods may still be liable.
What counts as reasonable opportunity to collect
"Reasonable opportunity" is not a fixed number of hours or days — it depends on the circumstances. Where the consignee is local and the notification was timely, a shorter window may suffice. Where the consignee needs time to arrange transport, inspectors, or customs clearance, a longer window is reasonable. A carrier that transfers goods to a third-party warehouse, removes the goods from its custody, or otherwise changes their status while the consignee is still within a reasonable collection window should be cautious about arguing its liability has ended. The carrier's duty of extraordinary diligence follows the goods until the transition to consignee control is genuinely complete.
Protecting your claim as consignee
If your cargo was damaged or lost while waiting at the destination, act quickly. Note the exact sequence: when you were notified of arrival, when you attempted to collect, and when the loss or damage was discovered. Request the carrier's records of where the goods were stored and how they were handled after arrival. The carrier may argue that your delayed pickup broke the chain of its liability — but under Articles 1736 and 1738, its responsibility continues until you had a real and reasonable chance to collect. Document whether that reasonable opportunity was genuinely available before the loss occurred.
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.
- Keihin-Everett Forwarding Co., Inc. vs. Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. and Sunfreight Forwarders, G.R. No. 212107, January 28, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. Rotterdam and The East Asiatic Co., Ltd. vs. Glow Laks Enterprises, Ltd, G.R. No. 156330, November 19, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Benito Macam, etc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals & Wallem Philippines, etc., et al, G.R. No. 125524, August 25, 1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- The Union Insurance Society of Canton vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 100319, August 8, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →