Short answer. Yes, it may. Article 2215 lets a court equitably mitigate damages in contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts, and the first instance it names is that the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract. It reduces the award; it does not defeat the claim.
What the law says
the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article
Civil Code, Article 2215 — Equitable Mitigation of Damages. Read the full provision →
What the law says
That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract
Civil Code, Article 2215 — Equitable Mitigation of Damages. Read the full provision →
Mitigation is not a defence
Read the verb: the court may equitably mitigate the damages. Your own breach of the same contract is a reason to reduce what you recover, not a rule that cancels the claim, and it is expressly discretionary. That distinction is worth holding on to when the other side writes back saying you broke the contract first and therefore have no case at all. What they have identified, at best, is a factor in the assessment. Whether your claim exists is a separate question, answered by the contract and by what each side actually failed to do.
The list is illustrative, and the other entries matter
The article introduces its grounds with as in the following instances, so the enumeration is not closed, and the remaining entries repay reading. That the plaintiff derived some benefit from the contract, that the loss would have resulted in any event, and that since the filing of the action the defendant has done his best to lessen the loss are all there. The fourth is the one claimants most often overlook: a loss that would have happened anyway is a weak thing to charge to a defendant, however badly he behaved otherwise.
There is no formula for how much it cuts
Mitigation is equitable, which means the court weighs the conduct on both sides and arrives at a figure. No percentage attaches to a particular kind of breach. It is also distinct from the reduction under the preceding article, which deals with the contributory negligence of a plaintiff in quasi-delicts; the article says so itself, applying under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article. So do not expect arithmetic, and be wary of anyone who offers you some.
If it is being argued against you
The useful response is factual rather than indignant. Establish the sequence: what each party was obliged to do, in what order, and who failed first, because a breach that came after theirs reads very differently from one that came before. Show what the defendant's breach cost you regardless of your own lapse. And keep the record of anything you did to limit the damage, since the article's fifth instance rewards a defendant who tried to reduce the loss, and the same instinct reads well from your side too.
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.
- In the Matter of Urgent Petition for the Release of Prisoners on Humanitarian Grounds, G.R. No. 252117, July 28, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Tondo Medical Center, represented by Dr. Maria Isabelita M. Estrella vs. Rolando Rante, doing, G.R. No. 230645, July 1, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Victoria Ong vs. Ernesto Bogñalbal, et al, G.R. No. 149140, September 12, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 2214 — Contributory Negligence Mitigates
- Civil Code, Article 2203 — Duty to Mitigate