Short answer. Yes, partially. Under Article 1172 of the Civil Code, negligence in performing an obligation is always demandable, but courts are given the power to regulate liability according to the circumstances — meaning a judge can reduce (though not eliminate) your exposure where the negligence was minor and the context warrants it.
What the law says
Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances.
Civil Code, Article 1172 — Liability for Negligence. Read the full provision →
Negligence is always actionable — but that is only half the story
Article 1172 makes two things clear. First, negligence in carrying out any obligation — not just contracts, but any kind — is demandable. The other party can ask a court to hold you responsible. Second, that liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances. "Regulated" means the court has discretion to adjust what you owe — calibrating it to the seriousness of the negligence, the nature of the obligation, any contributory behavior by the other party, and the actual harm caused.
What factors courts actually weigh
The statute says "according to the circumstances" without defining them, which gives courts significant discretion. In practice, relevant factors include: how careless was the conduct — a momentary lapse differs from sustained inattention; did the other party share any fault; was the harm disproportionately large compared to the degree of fault; what kind of obligation was being performed and what standard of care applies to it. A slight slip in an otherwise careful performance may result in a much-reduced award. A serious failure of attention is less likely to attract judicial mercy.
Negligence versus fraud: a critical difference
This judicial discretion to reduce liability exists only for negligence. Article 1172 must be read alongside the Civil Code's treatment of fraud: liability arising from fraud in the performance of an obligation cannot be waived in advance, and courts are far less willing to reduce it. If the breach was intentional or in bad faith, Article 1172's moderating principle does not apply with the same force. The distinction between a genuine mistake and deliberate misconduct is therefore important if you are trying to invoke the court's power to soften your liability.
Practical takeaway
If you are facing a claim for damages from a relatively minor lapse in performing an obligation, Article 1172 is the legal basis for asking the court to calibrate the award rather than imposing the full theoretical loss. This is not a guarantee of reduction — the court may decline if the harm was severe or the negligence was gross — but it is a genuine mechanism. Document your overall care in performing the obligation, the circumstances that led to the specific lapse, and any evidence of comparative fault on the other side. These are the facts that give the court something concrete to regulate.
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.
- Joseph Harry Poole-Blunden vs. Union Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 205838, November 29, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Chinatrust Commercial Bank vs. Philip Turner, G.R. No. 191458, July 3, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- BF Corporation vs. Verdenberg International Corporation, G.R. No. 174387, December 9, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philippine National Bank vs. Carmelita S. Santos, et al, G.R. No. 208293, December 10, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →