Short answer. No. Once you show the goods were handed over in good order and came back lost, short or damaged, Article 1735 presumes the carrier was at fault. It then has to prove it observed extraordinary diligence, or bring the loss within one of the narrow exempting causes.
What the law says
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 →
What the law says
Even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of the common carrier in the vigilance over the goods, the common carrier is disputably presumed to have been negligent in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration.
Civil Code, Article 1752 — Presumption Survives a Limitation. Read the full provision →
The presumption, and who it saves
Article 1735 provides that 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. The rule exists because of an obvious imbalance. A shipper hands over a sealed container and next sees it on a wharf; everything that happened in between happened out of sight, in the carrier's hands, recorded in the carrier's documents. Putting the burden on the shipper would make most claims impossible to prove.
What you still have to establish
The presumption is not a free pass; it starts working only after you prove the basics. You must show a contract of carriage with this carrier, that the goods were delivered to it in the described condition and quantity, and that they arrived damaged or short, or never arrived. The bill of lading, packing list, receiving report, weights and photographs at both ends carry that. Once shown, you stop and the carrier begins. You are not required to explain how the loss happened, and it is no answer that you cannot.
How a carrier gets out from under it
Two routes. It can prove it actually exercised extraordinary diligence, which in practice means producing its stowage, handling, security and maintenance records rather than asserting good practice. Or it can bring the loss within the short list of exempting causes in the preceding article — natural disaster, an act of the public enemy, the shipper's own act, the character of the goods, or an order of public authority. Those are narrow and read strictly, and even when one applies the carrier must still show it did what it could to prevent or lessen the loss.
A limiting clause does not remove the presumption
Shippers often assume that a liability cap or declared-value clause in the bill of lading shifts the burden back to them. It does not. Article 1752 provides that even when there is an agreement limiting the liability of the common carrier in the vigilance over the goods, the common carrier is disputably presumed to have been negligent in case of their loss, destruction or deterioration. A valid clause may cap what you recover; it does not make you prove fault first. So file your claim on the documents you have and let the carrier answer for the gap.
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 →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1735 — Presumption of Negligence (Goods)
- Civil Code, Article 1752 — Presumption Survives a Limitation