Short answer. The law of the destination country. Article 1753 provides that the law of the country to which the goods are to be transported governs the common carrier's liability for their loss, destruction or deterioration. So for goods shipped from the Philippines to another country, that country's law — not Philippine law — is the default measure of the carrier's liability.
What the law says
The law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss, destruction or deterioration.
Civil Code, Article 1753 — Applicable Law. Read the full provision →
Destination law, not origin law
When goods cross a border, the natural first question is whose law decides what the carrier owes if they are lost. Article 1753 answers it with a single rule: the law of the country to which the goods are to be transported shall govern the liability of the common carrier for their loss, destruction or deterioration. The connecting factor is the destination, not where the carrier is based, where the contract was signed, or where the journey began. For an outbound shipment from the Philippines, that means the receiving country's rules on a carrier's liability are the ones that apply, unless something else displaces them.
What it covers — and what it does not
Read the article for what it actually decides. It fixes the governing law for one thing: the carrier's liability for loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods. It does not purport to settle every issue that can arise from an international carriage — the formation of the contract, freight disputes, or questions of who may sue can turn on other rules of private international law. Nor does it override an international convention or a special law that Congress has made applicable to a given mode of transport; those govern where they apply, and Article 1753 fills the space they leave. It is the default rule for cargo liability, not a code of international shipping.
Why the destination rule matters in practice
The practical upshot is that the protection you can count on for an export shipment may not be the Philippine standard of extraordinary diligence you would get on a domestic route. The destination country may impose a lower ceiling on a carrier's liability, shorter deadlines to make a claim, or different rules on what the carrier must prove. A shipper who assumes Philippine cargo rules travel with the goods can be surprised at the other end. So the terms of the carriage — and the law they point to — are worth reading before the goods leave, not after a claim arises.
Before you ship
If you are sending goods abroad, treat the destination's law as a live term of the deal. Ask what liability regime will apply at the receiving end, whether an international convention covers the mode of transport, and what the limits and claim deadlines are under that regime. Match your insurance to that answer rather than to what you would expect at home. And keep the shipping documents that fix the destination and the agreed terms, because those are what will identify the governing law if a loss has to be litigated.
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.
- Transimex Co. vs. Mafre Asian Insurance Corp, G.R. No. 190271, September 14, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc. vs. Wallem Phils. Shipping, Inc., et al, G.R. No. 165647, March 26, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Purita S. Mapa, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 122308, July 8, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →