Short answer. No. Article 1745 of the Civil Code expressly declares as void any stipulation that exempts a common carrier from liability for loss caused by defective equipment. That includes the ship's hold. The carrier cannot contract away responsibility for the condition of its own vessel.
What the law says
That the common carrier is not responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods on account of the defective condition of the car, vehicle, ship, airplane or other equipment used in the contract of carriage.
Civil Code, Article 1745 — Void Stipulations. Read the full provision →
The list of void carrier stipulations
Article 1745 of the Civil Code identifies a category of carrier contract clauses that are considered unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy — and therefore void no matter what the parties agreed. The list covers seven types of stipulation, and the seventh is directly on point for your situation: any clause that tries to release the carrier from liability for loss caused by the defective condition of the car, vehicle, ship, airplane or other equipment used in the contract of carriage. A defective ship's hold falls squarely within that category.
Why the law refuses to honor this clause
Common carriers are held to a high standard of care because the public entrusts goods and passengers to them and has little practical ability to inspect the vessel or equipment before delivery. Allowing a carrier to contractually escape liability for its own defective equipment would remove the incentive to maintain safe, seaworthy, or airworthy transport. The carrier controls the ship; the shipper does not. Article 1745 prevents the carrier from exploiting that information and bargaining imbalance by inserting a clause that effectively says: use our defective equipment at your own risk.
What you need to establish your claim
Even with the clause void, you still need to prove the facts: that your goods were lost or damaged, that the cause was a defect in the carrier's equipment, and the extent of the loss. The carrier may dispute whether the hold was truly defective, or argue that the cause of loss was something else — a fortuitous event, the nature of the goods, the shipper's own fault. Gathering evidence of the defective condition — surveys, photographs, inspection reports, loading records, and statements from witnesses who observed the hold's condition — is important for establishing causation.
What the carrier cannot argue and what it can
The carrier cannot argue that its contract clause shields it from liability. Article 1745 makes that argument dead on arrival — the clause has no legal effect. What the carrier can argue is that the equipment was not actually defective, or that the loss arose from an exempt cause (such as a force majeure event, the inherent defect of the goods, or the shipper's negligence). These are substantive defenses that address the facts of the loss itself, not the validity of the exculpatory clause. A lawyer can help you anticipate those defenses and prepare your evidence accordingly.
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 →