(Philippine legal article; Civil Code focus with practical and jurisprudential context)

1) Statutory Home and Policy Rationale

The primary Civil Code provisions on common carriers are found in Articles 1732 to 1766 (Book IV, Title VIII, Chapter on Common Carriers). These rules embody a strong public-policy choice: because transportation businesses hold themselves out to serve the public and control the means of conveyance, the law demands a higher standard of care and allocates risk to the carrier unless the carrier can clearly show that the loss, damage, injury, or death happened despite the legally required diligence.

The Civil Code framework is protective of passengers and cargo owners. It treats carriage not as an ordinary private contract but as an activity showing public interest, requiring extraordinary diligence and imposing presumptions of carrier fault when adverse events occur.

2) Who Is a “Common Carrier” Under the Civil Code? (Article 1732)

A common carrier includes any person, corporation, firm, or association engaged in the business of transporting passengers or goods, or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, and offering services to the public.

Key points in Philippine doctrine:

The carrier may be a common carrier even if transportation is not its sole or principal business, so long as it holds itself out to transport for hire as part of its operations.
What matters is the public character of the undertaking—an offer to transport for compensation to the public or to a class of the public as a business.
A private carrier (e.g., a one-off, specially negotiated carriage not offered to the public) is generally governed by ordinary obligations and the standard of ordinary diligence—not the heightened common-carrier regime.

3) The Core Obligation: Extraordinary Diligence (Article 1733)

Common carriers must observe extraordinary diligence:

explainable as the utmost care and foresight that very cautious persons would use, having regard for the circumstances, the nature of the conveyance, and the risks involved; and
implemented through proper selection and supervision of employees, proper maintenance of vehicles/vessels/aircraft, and proper operational safeguards.

This is the backbone rule. The rest of the Civil Code provisions largely answer: What happens when there is loss/damage/injury, and what can excuse the carrier?

4) Carriage of Goods: Responsibilities and Presumptions

A. Presumption of Fault Upon Loss, Destruction, or Deterioration (Article 1735)

If goods are lost, destroyed, or deteriorated, the Civil Code imposes a presumption that the common carrier was at fault or negligent. Practically, this shifts the burden:

The cargo owner/shipper generally proves delivery to the carrier in good condition and non-delivery (or delivery in damaged condition).
The carrier must then prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence and/or that the loss falls under legally recognized exempting causes.

B. Exempting Causes for Goods (Article 1734, plus related provisions)

The Civil Code recognizes limited “exempting causes” (commonly listed as):

Flood, storm, earthquake, lightning, or other natural disaster/calamity
Act of the public enemy in war, whether international or civil
Act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods
The character of the goods or defects in packaging/containers
Order or act of competent public authority

Important qualifiers in practice:

Even if a cause appears on the list, the carrier must still show it exercised the required diligence and that the loss was not due to its negligence (e.g., failing to take reasonable precautions, using unsafe routes, poor stowage, poor maintenance, or ignoring warnings).
“Natural disaster” does not automatically excuse the carrier if the event was foreseeable enough to warrant precautions, or if the carrier’s negligence concurred with the calamity.

C. Due Diligence Duties “Before, During, and After”

For goods, extraordinary diligence is operationalized through:

Accepting cargo properly (inspection when reasonable; accurate documents; proper measurement/weight handling)
Proper stowage/handling (loading, securing, segregation, temperature control when applicable)
Safe custody (guarding against theft/pilferage when risk is known; secure terminals; tracking and accountability)
Safe routing and scheduling (avoiding known hazards; compliance with safety regulations; proper seaworthiness/roadworthiness/airworthiness)
Proper delivery procedures (verification of consignee; release controls; care in transshipment)

D. Delay in Delivery of Goods

The Civil Code treats unjustified delay as a breach of the carrier’s obligation. In goods carriage, delay can result in liability showing:

the carrier failed to exercise extraordinary diligence to deliver on time;
the delay caused actual damages (e.g., spoilage, lost sales, contractual penalties); and
the damage is sufficiently linked (proximate cause).

Carriers often attempt to rely on force majeure or port/traffic congestion; liability typically turns on whether such conditions were foreseeable and reasonably manageable, and whether the carrier took prudent steps to mitigate delay.

5) Carriage of Passengers: Responsibilities, Presumptions, and Higher Sensitivity

The Civil Code and Philippine jurisprudence are notably strict in passenger cases because the passenger’s life and physical safety are at stake.

A. Standard of Care: Extraordinary Diligence for Passenger Safety

A common carrier must carry passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard to circumstances. This includes:

competent, properly trained drivers/captains/pilots;
safe speed and safe driving/seamanship;
vehicle/vessel/aircraft maintenance;
compliance with safety laws and operational protocols;
prudence in boarding/alighting procedures; and
reasonable security measures when risks are known or feel foreseeable.

B. Presumption of Negligence in Passenger Injury/Death

Where a passenger is injured or dies in connection with carriage, courts commonly apply presumptions and doctrinal burdens consistent with the Civil Code’s protective stance:

Once the passenger shows the injury/death occurred in the course of carriage, the carrier is generally expected to prove it exercised extraordinary diligence and that the incident was due to causes beyond its control without its negligence.

C. Scope: When Does the Carrier–Passenger Relationship Begin and End?

Philippine doctrine commonly treats the duty as arising not only during transit but also in activities closely connected to carriage:

boarding and alighting, and
being in areas under the carrier’s control where passengers are expected to be (terminals, platforms), depending on facts.

The exact boundary is fact-specific, but the theme is consistent: if the risk arises from the carrier’s operations and passenger handling, the carrier’s extraordinary diligence obligations are strongly engaged.

D. Third-Party Acts and Criminality

Carriers are not insurers against all crime, but they may be liable when:

the risk was foreseeable (e.g., known hot spots, prior incidents, inadequate security), and
the carrier failed to take reasonable measures demanded by extraordinary diligence under the circumstances.

Where harm is caused by another vehicle’s negligence, the carrier may still be held liable to its passenger if the carrier’s own negligence contributed or if it cannot prove extraordinary diligence. Passenger protection typically allows the passenger to recover from the carrier, leaving the carrier to pursue recourse against the third party when appropriate.

6) Employee Acts, Selection, and Supervision

Extraordinary diligence necessarily includes:

careful selection of employees (qualification checks, licensing, training), and
effective supervision and enforcement of safety rules.

In practice, carriers commonly explains accidents as the act of an employee; that rarely excuses them. The law expects carriers to institutionalize safety and discipline, not merely hire and hope.

7) Stipulations Limiting Liability: What the Civil Code Allows and Forbids

A central Civil Code theme is that common carriers cannot contract away the essence of extraordinary diligence, especially not for their own negligence or that of their employees.

A. Void or Disfavored Stipulations (General Theme)

As a rule, stipulations are invalid when they:

exempt the carrier from liability for its own negligence or that of its employees;
require the shipper/passenger to assume the risk of the carrier’s negligence;
impose unreasonable conditions that effectively defeat the passenger’s or shipper’s right to recover; or
reduce the standard of care below extraordinary diligence.

In passenger cases, stipulations that attempt to limit liability for death or personal injury due to negligence are generally treated as contrary to public policy.

B. Limited Validity of Reasonable Limitations (Common Patterns)

The Civil Code and practice recognize that certain limitations can be valid if reasonable and not contrary to public policy, especially in goods carriage, such as:

declared value rules showing that liability may be limited to the value declared by the shipper (commonly used to price freight and manage risk), provided the shipper had a fair opportunity to declare and the arrangement is not oppressive;
reasonable requirements for notice of claims within a workable period, if not used as a trap; and
conditions consistent with customary shipping documents, so long as they do not excuse negligence and remain consistent with the Civil Code’s mandatory standards.

The enforceability of any limitation often turns on fairness, clarity, the parties’ real opportunity to understand the term, and whether the carrier’s negligence caused the harm.

8) Contributory Negligence and Passenger/Consignee Fault

Philippine civil law recognizes that a passenger’s or shipper’s own negligence can affect recovery.

Common applications:

Contributory negligence may reduce damages, but it does not automatically eliminate carrier liability if the carrier was also negligent.
If the passenger’s conduct is the sole proximate cause (highly fact-specific), the carrier may be excused.
For goods, the act/omission of the shipper, poor packaging, misdeclaration, or inherent defect may excuse or mitigate liability if proven and causally linked.

9) Burden of Proof: What Each Side Typically Must Show

Goods

Cargo owner: delivery to carrier in good condition + failure to deliver or delivery in damaged condition.
Carrier: extraordinary diligence and/or exempting cause; plus absence of negligence.

Passengers

Passenger/heirs: injury/death in the course of carriage (plus damages).
Carrier: extraordinary diligence; or that the injury/death was due solely to causes beyond its control without negligence.

These burdens reflect the Civil Code’s policy: transportation providers are best positioned to prevent harm and to explain what happened.

10) Remedies and Damages Under the Civil Code

Depending on facts and proof, recoverable damages may include:

Actual/compensatory damages (medical expenses, repair/replacement value, lost earnings, proven business losses)
Moral damages in appropriate cases (not automatic; requires legal basis and factual support—often present in death/injury cases and certain bad-faith contexts)
Exemplary damages where the defendant’s conduct is wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent (often tied to gross negligence)
Attorney’s fees in recognized cases under the Civil Code
Interest where legally proper

In death cases, the Civil Code’s general provisions on indemnities and support may be implicated alongside carriage rules, depending on pleadings and proof.

11) Interplay With Special Laws and Conventions (Philippine Context)

While the Civil Code is the backbone for common-carrier obligations, particular sectors may be affected by special regimes:

Air carriage may involve international conventions and aviation regulations in addition to Civil Code principles.
Sea carriage of goods may involve specialized rules (e.g., bills of lading practice; statutory regimes relevant to maritime shipment showing different limitation concepts).
Land transportation may be heavily influenced by transportation regulations, LTFRB rules, and safety statutes.

A practical way to view it: the Civil Code supplies the baseline of extraordinary diligence and public policy, while special laws may refine procedure, documentation, limitation periods, and some liability structures—subject to the overarching prohibition against excusing negligence in ways inconsistent with mandatory policy.

12) Practical Compliance Checklist for Carriers (What “Extraordinary Diligence” Looks Like)

Courts frequently evaluate diligence through concrete operational proof. Best practices include:

For passengers

documented driver training, rest policies, drug/alcohol controls
strict speed monitoring (GPS/telematics), route risk assessment
vehicle maintenance logs, pre-trip inspections, defect reporting
boarding/alighting controls and terminal safety
incident response protocols and reporting

For goods

standardized acceptance, packaging checks when appropriate
chain-of-custody controls, sealed compartments, CCTV in hubs
stowage protocols, weight limits, segregation of incompatible cargo
temperature/handling controls for perishables or fragile items
clear delivery authorization procedures

When accidents or losses occur, carriers that can produce credible records, safety audits, maintenance logs, and trained personnel testimony are far better positioned to rebut the Civil Code presumptions.

13) Key Takeaways

The Civil Code treats common carriage as a business affected with public interest: extraordinary diligence is mandatory.
In goods carriage, loss/damage triggers a presumption of carrier fault; the carrier must prove extraordinary diligence and/or an exempting cause.
In passenger carriage, the law is even more protective: carriers must show that injuries/deaths occurred despite extraordinary diligence.
Exempting causes exist but are narrowly applied; carriers reminds: force majeure is not a magic word—proof of diligence still matters.
Contract terms cannot validly excuse the carrier’s negligence or undermine public policy; limitations are scrutinized for fairness and legality.
In practice, liability often turns on records, systems, supervision, maintenance, and credible operational proof—not on general denials.

If you want, I can also add (a) a case-style issue-spotter outline for bar review, or (b) sample pleadings/argument structure for plaintiff vs. carrier defenses—still strictly anchored on the Civil Code framework.