Short answer. No. Article 1745 lists that exact stipulation first among those it declares unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy. Signing the waybill does not make it good, because the objection is to the substance of the clause and not to how it was agreed.
What the law says
Any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy: (1) That the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper;
Civil Code, Article 1745 — Void Stipulations. Read the full provision →
What the law says
(5) That the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omission of his or its employees;
Civil Code, Article 1745 — Void Stipulations. Read the full provision →
The clause is named in the statute
There is not much room for argument here, because the drafters wrote the clause out and struck it down by name. Article 1745 provides that any of the following or similar stipulations shall be considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy: (1) That the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper;. Whether it appears on the face of a waybill, in a booking confirmation or in a signed contract of affreightment, the stipulation is void. Consent is beside the point: a shipper cannot validly agree to something the law refuses to enforce.
Six more that go with it
The list continues, and the entries cover most of the wording carriers reach for. A blanket disclaimer of liability for any loss; a term that the carrier need observe no diligence at all; a reduction below the care of a good father of a family; (5) that the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omission of his or its employees;; a dispensation for theft by thieves or unarmed robbers; and a disclaimer for loss caused by the defective condition of the vehicle, vessel or aircraft used. All seven fall together.
'Or similar stipulations' closes the escape route
The opening words matter as much as the enumeration. Because the article catches similar stipulations, a carrier cannot rescue the same bargain by renaming it. Wording that says risk of loss passes to the shipper on loading, or that the carrier acts merely as a forwarding agent, or that liability is excluded save for wilful misconduct, is measured by what it does rather than by what it is called. If the practical effect is to place the risk of the carriage on the shipper, it belongs on the list.
What a carrier can lawfully agree instead
Not every limitation is void, and it helps to know where the boundary sits. A properly made agreement reducing the standard below extraordinary diligence can be valid if it is written, signed by the shipper, supported by consideration beyond the carriage itself, and reasonable. A clause limiting recovery to the value declared in the bill of lading is binding. So is one limiting liability for delay caused by strikes or riots. What cannot be done is to disclaim responsibility for the carriage altogether, and 'at owner's risk' does precisely that.
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.
- Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 102316, June 30, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Torres-Madrid Brokerage, Inc. vs. FEB Mitsu Marine Insurance Co., Inc. and Benjamin P. Manalastas, G.R. No. 194121, July 11, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Loadstar Shipping Company Inc., et al. vs. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc, G.R. No. 185565, November 26, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Cebu Salvage Corp. vs. Phil. Harne Assurance Corp, G.R. No. 150403, January 25, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 1745 — Void Stipulations
- Civil Code, Article 1744 — Valid Limitation of Liability
- Civil Code, Article 1748 — Limitation for Strikes/Riots Valid