Short answer. The highest standard the law knows: extraordinary diligence. Article 1733 of the Civil Code requires common carriers to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over goods and for the safety of passengers, taking into account all the circumstances of each case. Ordinary negligence is not a defense.
What the law says
Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the circumstances of each case.
Civil Code, Article 1733 — Extraordinary Diligence Required. Read the full provision →
Extraordinary diligence: what it means
Article 1733 imposes the highest duty of care known to Philippine civil law on common carriers. The standard is not the ordinary diligence of a reasonable person, nor the diligence of a good father of a family. It is extraordinary diligence — demanded because of the nature of the carrier's business and, crucially, for reasons of public policy. Carriers hold themselves out to the public, collect compensation, and take charge of people's goods and lives. That public trust justifies a correspondingly demanding standard.
The presumption of fault when goods are lost
Article 1735 reinforces Article 1733 by reversing the burden of proof. If goods entrusted to a carrier are lost, destroyed, or deteriorated, and the loss is not attributable to one of the five exempting causes listed in Article 1734 — flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, other natural disaster; act of the public enemy in war; act or omission of the shipper; character of the goods or defective packing; order of competent public authority — then the carrier is presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently. The carrier must affirmatively prove it observed extraordinary diligence. The shipper does not need to prove the carrier was careless.
What the carrier must show to escape liability
To overcome the presumption, the carrier must show it exercised extraordinary diligence over the specific goods in question, or that the loss falls squarely within one of the five exempting causes under Article 1734. Showing "reasonable care" is not enough. Showing that employees followed standard procedures is not, by itself, enough. The carrier's defense must reach the extraordinary level the statute demands — and courts examine the specific facts of each case to decide whether that bar has been met.
Goods and passengers: the same standard, different articles
Article 1733 applies both to goods and to passengers, but it cross-references separate articles for each. For goods, the detailed rules are in Articles 1734, 1735, and 1745. For passengers, Article 1755 describes the duty as carrying them safely "as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons." Article 1756 imposes a parallel presumption of negligence in case of death or injury to a passenger. If you are a shipper whose cargo was damaged, or a passenger who was injured, the starting point is the same: the carrier carries the burden of proving its diligence.
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.
- G.V. Florida Transport, Inc. vs. Heirs of Romeo L. Battung, Jr., represented by Romeo Battung, Sr, G.R. No. 208802, October 14, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. Dr. Jose M. Tiongco, G.R. No. 212136, October 4, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- 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 →
- 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 →