Short answer. No. Article 1745 of the Civil Code expressly declares that a stipulation placing the risk of loss on the owner or shipper is unreasonable, unjust, and contrary to public policy. Such a clause in a waybill or carrier contract has no legal effect — the carrier remains liable for loss regardless of what the document says.
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 →
The clause is void from the moment it is written
Article 1745 of the Civil Code lists types of carrier contract clauses that the law simply refuses to enforce. The very first type on the list: that the goods are transported at the risk of the owner or shipper. A waybill clause of this kind is not merely unenforceable between sophisticated parties — it is classified as unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy. The classification matters: a void clause cannot be given effect even if both parties signed it and even if the shipper had a chance to read it.
Why carriers cannot make shippers bear the risk
Common carriers take on the duty of safe custody of goods the moment the goods are entrusted to them. That duty is not something that can be transferred to the shipper by fine print. Once a carrier accepts goods for transport, it becomes responsible for their safe delivery to the consignee. Allowing the carrier to avoid that responsibility by inserting a blanket risk clause would undermine the entire purpose of the common carrier's legal obligation — and would make the shipper bear the consequences of the carrier's own negligence. Article 1745 was written precisely to prevent that outcome.
What the carrier can legitimately limit
Not everything in a carrier's contract is void. Article 1745's list covers only certain types of clauses — the ones that remove or reduce the carrier's liability in ways the law considers unfair. The Civil Code separately allows carriers and shippers to agree on a limited valuation of the goods, capping liability at a specific amount. That kind of limitation on the extent of liability is different from placing the risk of loss entirely on the shipper. If you are uncertain whether a clause in your contract is the prohibited type or a permissible limitation, have a lawyer review the document.
What you should do if your goods were lost
If you suffered a loss and the carrier is pointing to the waybill clause to deny liability, that defense fails under Article 1745. The carrier remains responsible for the loss unless it can establish one of the recognized defenses: an act of God (natural disaster), act of a public enemy, act or omission of the shipper, the inherent character or defect of the goods, or the authority of law — and it must prove these affirmatively. Document your loss thoroughly: the condition of the goods when tendered, the delivery receipt, any inspection records on arrival, and the carrier's response to your claim. A lawyer can help you assert your claim against the carrier effectively.
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 →