Our contract never specified how careful my supplier had to be with my goods — what standard does the law use by default?

The default standard when your contract says nothing

The Civil Code directly addresses what happens when neither the law nor the contract spells out how careful someone has to be in performing an obligation. In that situation, if the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance, that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required.

"Good father of a family" is the traditional shorthand for the ordinary, reasonably prudent standard of care, not an extraordinary or perfectionist one. It is the level of care an ordinarily careful person would exercise in handling something of that kind, under those particular circumstances.

How negligence is measured against that standard

The same article defines negligence itself: the fault or negligence of the party owing the obligation consists in omitting the diligence required by the nature of the obligation and matching the circumstances of the persons, the time, and the place involved. That means the standard is not fixed in the abstract; it flexes depending on what kind of goods are involved, who is handling them, and the conditions under which the obligation is being performed.

For your supplier, this means the question is not simply whether something went wrong with your goods, but whether the supplier exercised the level of care an ordinarily prudent party would have exercised handling goods of that type, under those particular circumstances.

When bad faith changes the picture

If the supplier's negligence shows bad faith, the analysis does not stop at the ordinary diligence standard. The Civil Code separately provides that responsibility arising from fraud is demandable in all obligations, and that any waiver of an action for future fraud is void, meaning a party cannot contract away liability for fraud in advance.

Damages also shift once bad faith is shown. Where negligence involves fraud, bad faith, malice, or a wanton attitude, the obligor becomes responsible for all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the obligation, rather than only the damages that were foreseeable at the time the obligation was created.

What this means for your dispute with the supplier

Because your contract is silent on the required standard of care, the good father of a family standard applies by default, and whether your supplier is liable turns on whether ordinary, reasonably prudent care was exercised given the nature of your goods and the circumstances of the handling. If there is evidence of something more than carelessness, actual bad faith or fraud, the potential damages recoverable can be broader than what ordinary negligence would allow.

Sorting out which standard applies to your facts, and whether it was met, depends heavily on the specific circumstances of how your goods were handled, so those details should be reviewed before assuming how a claim against the supplier would turn out.

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.

• Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 102316, June 30, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Solidbank Corp./Metro Bank & Trust Co. vs. Sps. Peter & Susan Tan, G.R. No. 167346, April 2, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Sister Pilar Versoza vs. People of the Philippines, Michelina S. Aguirre-Olondriz, Pedro Aguirre, G.R. No. 184535, September 3, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Al Dela Cruz vs. Capt. Renato Octaviano and Wilma Octaviano, G.R. No. 219649, July 26, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 1173 — What Negligence Is