Short answer. Yes. Article 1229 directs that the judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor. Because you finished most of the job, the court has authority, indeed a duty, to scale the penalty down to reflect what you actually performed.
What the law says
The judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor
Civil Code, Article 1229 — Equitable Reduction of the Penalty. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable
Civil Code, Article 1229 — Equitable Reduction of the Penalty. Read the full provision →
Partial performance is exactly what the article targets
Article 1229 is written for your situation. It says the judge shall equitably reduce the penalty when the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with by the debtor. A penalty clause fixes in advance what you owe for breaching, often a set sum or a daily charge. The article recognises that applying that full figure to someone who did most of the work, or who performed late or imperfectly rather than not at all, can be unfair. So the law tells the court to bring the penalty down to a level that fits the part you actually delivered.
'Shall' is a duty, not a favour
Notice the word shall. When the principal obligation has been partly or irregularly complied with, reducing the penalty is not a discretion the court may withhold; it is a duty. What remains discretionary is the amount, because the reduction must be equitable, weighed against how much you performed, how far short you fell, and the harm your delay caused. Finishing most of the job weighs in your favour, but it does not entitle you to any fixed percentage cut. The court measures the gap between what was promised and what was done, then trims the penalty to match.
Even with no performance, an unfair penalty can be cut
The article gives a second, independent ground for relief. Even if there has been no performance, the penalty may also be reduced by the courts if it is iniquitous or unconscionable. So a penalty can be lowered on two separate bases: because the debtor partly performed, or because the stipulated penalty is simply excessive on its face. You may be able to argue both, that you did most of the work, and that the penalty, measured against the real loss, is disproportionate. The first ground fits your facts most directly, but the second is a useful fallback where the clause itself is harsh.
Reduced, not erased, so the debt stays
Reduction is not cancellation. Article 1229 lets the court soften the penalty; it does not wipe out the underlying obligation or excuse the breach. You can still be answerable for the principal duty itself and for the portion of the penalty the court considers fair. Nor is the reduction automatic, because the court must be shown the extent of your performance, so evidence of how much you completed and why you fell behind matters. The provision protects a debtor from a crushing penalty out of proportion to the default; it does not turn a late or partial performance into a fully excused one.
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.
- Lara's Gifts & Decors, Inc. vs. Midtown Industrial Sales, Inc, G.R. No. 225433, September 20, 2022 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Jaime and Matilde Poon vs. Prime Savings Bank represent by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation as Statutory Liquidator, G.R. No. 183794, June 13, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Solid Builders, Inc. and Medinaj Foods Industries, Inc. vs. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 179665, April 3, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Nunelon R. Marquez vs. Elisan Credit Corporation, G.R. No. 194642, April 6, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →