Text of the provision
Art. 1735. In all cases other than those mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the preceding article, if the goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated, common carriers are presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as required in article 1733.
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
If goods are lost, destroyed, or deteriorated, the carrier is presumed at fault or negligent unless it proves it observed extraordinary diligence (or one of the exempting causes in Art. 1734). The burden is on the carrier, not the shipper.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 1733 — Extraordinary Diligence Required.
- Article 1736 — Duration of the Carrier's Responsibility.
Cases citing this article
- Kuwait Airways Corporation vs. The Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., and Tokio, G.R. No. 213931, November 17, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philippine Charter Insurance Corporation vs. Unknown Owner of the Vessel MV "National Honor", et al, G.R. No. 161833, July 8, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- C.V. Gaspar Salvage & Lighterage Corporation vs. LG Insurance Company, Ltd., (United States Branch), G.R. No. 206892 / G.R. No. 207035, February 3, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Unitrans International Forwarders, Inc. vs. Insurance Company of North America, et al, G.R. No. 203865, March 13, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Private Hospitals Association of the Philipines, Inc. (PHAPI) Represented by Dr. Rustico Jimenez vs. Hon. Salvador Medialdea Executive Secretary and Acting Secretary of DOH…, G.R. No. 234448, November 6, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.