Short answer. No, if it did either without just cause. Article 1747 takes the limiting contract away from a carrier that delays the transport or departs from the stipulated or usual route, so the claim is then measured by the actual loss rather than by the agreed ceiling.
What the law says
If the common carrier, without just cause, delays the transportation of the goods or changes the stipulated or usual route, the contract limiting the common carrier's liability cannot be availed of in case of the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods.
Civil Code, Article 1747 — Delay or Deviation Voids the Limitation. Read the full provision →
What the law says
An agreement limiting the common carrier's liability for delay on account of strikes or riots is valid.
Civil Code, Article 1748 — Limitation for Strikes/Riots Valid. Read the full provision →
The forfeiture is automatic once the deviation is shown
Article 1747 does not reduce the cap or make it harder to invoke; it removes it. If the common carrier, without just cause, delays the transportation of the goods or changes the stipulated or usual route, the contract limiting the common carrier's liability cannot be availed of in case of the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the goods. The reasoning is straightforward. A limitation is priced against a particular voyage over a particular route in a particular time. A carrier that unilaterally substitutes a different venture cannot keep the protection bargained for the one it abandoned.
'Stipulated or usual' covers unwritten routes too
Shippers often assume the article only bites where the contract names a route. It does not. Where nothing was stipulated, the benchmark is the usual route, which is proved by the carrier's own past sailings or trips, its published schedules, and ordinary industry practice on the run. That matters most in domestic shipping and trucking, where the route is rarely written down but is perfectly well established. The same goes for time: a departure or delivery far outside the carrier's normal performance is a delay whether or not a date appears on the document.
What counts as just cause
The article excuses deviation and delay made for good reason, and the obvious candidates are safety-driven: avoiding a storm, responding to a distress call, escaping a blockade or a closed port, complying with an order of public authority. Commercial convenience is not in that class. Picking up additional cargo, calling at another port to fill the vessel, or holding the shipment until a truck is fully loaded serves the carrier and not the voyage. Because the carrier is the party asserting just cause, it is the party that must prove it.
What this changes about your claim
With the limitation out of the way, recovery is measured by the loss actually suffered, and the presumption of fault still stands against the carrier. The evidence to secure early is the routing and schedule evidence rather than the damage evidence: the booking, the bill of lading, tracking records, port or gate timestamps, and any explanation the carrier gave at the time. One caveat runs the other way — Article 1748 makes an agreement limiting liability for delay on account of strikes or riots valid, so delay from that source is treated differently.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1747 — Delay or Deviation Voids the Limitation
- Civil Code, Article 1748 — Limitation for Strikes/Riots Valid
- Civil Code, Article 1744 — Valid Limitation of Liability