Short answer. It only reduces them, as long as your negligence was contributory — not the immediate and proximate cause of your injury. Article 2179 of the Civil Code allows recovery when the defendant's lack of due care was the real cause, but requires courts to reduce the damages proportionally to account for your fault.
What the law says
if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
Civil Code, Article 2179 — Contributory vs. Proximate Negligence. Read the full provision →
The two-part rule: proximate cause and contributory fault
Article 2179 draws a critical line. If the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of the injury, there is no recovery — the plaintiff caused their own harm. But if the plaintiff's negligence was only contributory — a contributing factor, but not the principal cause — while the defendant's lack of due care was the real proximate cause, the plaintiff can still recover. The recovery is not zero; it is reduced. The law distinguishes between being the main cause and being a secondary factor.
What 'proximate cause' means
The proximate cause is the direct, immediate, dominant cause that set the injury in motion. It is not every event in the chain leading to the harm — it is the effective cause, the one that, without which, the injury would not have happened as it did. If you stepped into traffic without looking and were struck by a car that was speeding, the question is whether the speeding was the proximate cause of the collision, with your inattention a contributing factor, or whether your stepping out was itself the dominant cause that no reasonable speed would have avoided.
How courts mitigate damages
When contributory negligence is established, the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. Courts assess the relative fault of both parties and reduce the damages proportionally. There is no fixed formula — the reduction is based on how significantly the plaintiff's own conduct contributed to the harm. If you were 30% at fault and the defendant 70%, a court might reduce the award by 30%. The more your own negligence contributed, the greater the reduction. The defendant's counsel will typically argue for the largest possible reduction; your counsel will argue the defendant's fault was dominant.
What this means for your situation
Even if you made a mistake that contributed to the accident, you are not necessarily left without a remedy. The key question is whether the other party's negligence was the direct, dominant cause of your injury. If it was, and your error merely contributed, the law gives you a path to recovery — reduced, but real. Document everything about the accident: the conditions, what both parties were doing, witnesses, police reports, and medical records. A lawyer can assess how a court is likely to apportion fault and estimate what damages, after mitigation, you could realistically recover.
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.
- Allied Banking Corporation vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 188363, February 27, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Lambert S. Ramos vs. C.O.L. Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 184905, August 28, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Cresencia Achevara, Alfredo Achevara and Benigno Valdez vs. Elvira Ramos, John Arnel Ramos and Kristine Camille Ramos, G.R. No. 175172, September 29, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Flordeliza Mendoza vs. Mutya Soriano, et al, G.R. No. 164012, June 8, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →