Short answer. Generally, no. The figure fixed in advance under Article 2226 substitutes for proving actual loss and caps recovery, even if the real loss turns out higher. You can exceed it only if the contract reserved a right to added damages, or the breach involved fraud the clause was never meant to cover.

What the law says

Liquidated damages are those agreed upon by the parties to a contract, to be paid in case of breach thereof.

Civil Code, Article 2226 — Liquidated Damages Defined. Read the full provision →

Why the Stipulated Figure Usually Controls

The whole point of agreeing to liquidated damages in advance is to avoid the very dispute you are now facing — arguing over what the real loss was and proving it item by item. Because the parties already fixed a number for exactly this contingency, the law generally treats that number as standing in place of, not alongside, a separate proof-driven claim for the full extent of the actual harm.

The Substitution Rule Behind It

Philippine contract law's general principle for penal clauses is that the stipulated penalty replaces the ordinary measure of damages, unless the parties said otherwise. A liquidated damages clause in a contract works the same way in practice — it is meant to be the exclusive remedy for the breach it covers, not a floor beneath which a bigger, separately proved claim can still be layered.

How You Could Still Reach the Higher Figure

Two doors stay open. First, if the contract itself says the liquidated amount is 'without prejudice to' or 'in addition to' other damages, that express reservation controls and the stipulated sum stops being a ceiling. Second, if the breaching party's conduct involved fraud in how the obligation was performed, the ordinary rule that fraud exposes a party to all damages reasonably attributable to the wrong can open the door beyond what the clause contemplated.

What This Means Practically

Before assuming a large actual loss automatically wins out over a modest stipulated figure, check what the clause actually says about its own exclusivity, and look honestly at whether the breach involved ordinary non-performance or something closer to deliberate deception. Absent either of those, the number the parties agreed to is generally where the claim stops. The reverse risk cuts the other way too: courts can reduce an unreasonably large stipulated figure, so parties negotiating such clauses should treat the number as fixing exposure in both directions, not just as a floor.

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.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.