Short answer. Yes. Civil Code Article 2200 says indemnification for damages covers not only the value of the loss you actually suffered, but also the profits you failed to obtain because of the breach or the wrongful act. You are not limited to recovering only what came directly out of your pocket.
What the law says
Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered, but also that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain.
Civil Code, Article 2200 — Loss Suffered and Profits Not Realized. Read the full provision →
Two components, not one
Article 2200 sets out indemnification as having two parts: “the value of the loss suffered” and, separately, “that of the profits which the obligee failed to obtain.” These are traditionally distinguished as actual loss and lost earnings — what you spent or what was destroyed, and what you would have gained had the obligation been properly performed. Both are recoverable together; the statute does not treat lost profits as a lesser or optional category.
Lost profits still have to be proven
The word “failed to obtain” assumes those profits were reasonably expected, not merely hoped for. Claiming this component means showing what you would have earned had things gone as they should have — a concrete, reasoned basis, not speculation about a best-case outcome. Courts distinguish profits that were a probable, demonstrable consequence of the obligation from ones that are too uncertain or remote to indemnify. The stronger your evidence of what you actually stood to earn, the stronger this part of the claim.
Who this applies to
Article 2200 speaks of the “obligee” — the party to whom an obligation was owed. It applies where someone else's breach of an obligation, or a wrongful act giving rise to liability for damages, deprived you of profits you would otherwise have realized. That framing covers a wide range of situations, from a supplier failing to deliver goods you had committed to resell, to a contractor's delay costing you income the completed project would have generated.
It is one article among several on measuring damages
Article 2200 states what indemnification comprehends; it does not by itself fix the amount or resolve every dispute about causation and certainty. Other provisions in the same title of the Civil Code work alongside it to determine what counts as proven, foreseeable, and properly attributable damage. Knowing that lost profits are a recognized head of damages is the starting point — building the actual figure still requires solid records of what you were reasonably positioned to earn.
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.
- Universal International Investment (BVI) Limited vs. Ray Burton Development Corporation/Universal International Investment (BVI) Limited vs. Ray Burton Development Corporation, G.R. No. 182201 / G.R. No. 185815, November 14, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- National Power Corporation vs. Philipp Brothers Oceanic, Inc, G.R. No. 126204, November 20, 2001 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Oceanmarine Resources Corporation vs. Jenny Rose G. Nedic, on behalf of her minor son, G.R. No. 236263, July 19, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Filipino Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Inc. vs. Andrey, Inc, G.R. No. 233918, August 9, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →