Short answer. No. Article 1745 of the Civil Code expressly declares as void any stipulation that releases a common carrier from responsibility for the acts or omissions of its employees. Such a clause is unreasonable, unjust, and contrary to public policy — the carrier remains fully liable regardless of what the contract says.
What the law says
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 →
Article 1745 invalidates the employee-exemption clause
Article 1745 of the Civil Code lists stipulations in carriage contracts that the law refuses to recognize. Among them is the fifth type: a clause declaring that the common carrier shall not be responsible for the acts or omission of his or its employees. The law calls such clauses unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy. No matter how clearly the contract states this exemption, it has no legal effect. The carrier remains responsible for what its employees do — or fail to do — while performing the carriage.
Why carriers cannot disclaim employee conduct
A shipping carrier's service is delivered through its employees — the crew who load and stow cargo, the officers who navigate and monitor the vessel, the workers who handle goods at port. These employees act as the carrier's extended hands, and their negligence is the carrier's negligence. Allowing a carrier to contractually exclude liability for its own workforce would mean the carrier could deploy careless or untrained employees and suffer no consequences when their conduct causes loss. The law does not permit this result — it holds the carrier responsible as the entity whose people handled the goods.
What the carrier remains liable for
With the employee-exemption clause voided, the carrier stands fully liable for any loss, destruction, or deterioration of goods caused by the acts or omissions of its employees during the carriage. This covers negligent loading, improper stowage, failure to monitor cargo conditions, misdelivery, and any other employee conduct that results in harm to the goods. The standard of care required of common carriers is the diligence of a good father of a family in the custody of transported goods — a standard higher than ordinary negligence.
What you need to assert your claim
Document the loss and its cause as specifically as possible. Evidence connecting the loss to the conduct of carrier employees — loading records, inspection reports, witness accounts, correspondence with the carrier about the handling — is what turns a general claim into a provable one. The carrier will not be able to point to the contract clause as a defense, but it may argue that the loss arose from something other than employee negligence — force majeure, the inherent character of the goods, or the shipper's fault. Anticipating those alternative arguments and gathering evidence that rules them out is important. A lawyer can help you assess the strength of the claim and how to proceed.
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 →