Short answer. Not automatically. Article 2215 lists, among the circumstances in which a court may equitably mitigate damages, that in cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel. It is a ground for reduction in the court's discretion, not an exemption.
What the law says
In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel
Civil Code, Article 2215 — Equitable Mitigation of Damages. Read the full provision →
It only bites where exemplary damages are in play
The instance is expressly conditional. It applies in cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, and nowhere else. Exemplary or corrective damages are, under Article 2229, imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. So this ground has nothing to say about compensation for the loss itself. If no exemplary award is on the table, the fact that the defendant consulted a lawyer is simply not one of the article's grounds, and raising it there confuses two different questions.
Why advice of counsel mitigates at all
The reason follows from what exemplary damages are for. They correct and set an example, so they are aimed at the quality of the defendant's conduct rather than at the size of your loss. Article 2232 allows them in contracts and quasi-contracts where the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner. A defendant who put the question to a lawyer and then did what he was told looks less like a person who needs correcting, and the article lets a court reflect that in the figure it settles on.
What the ground does not do
It does not make the underlying act lawful, it does not reduce actual or compensatory damages, and it does not create a right to have exemplary damages struck out. Article 2233 already provides that exemplary damages cannot be recovered as a matter of right and that the court decides whether they should be adjudicated at all. Advice of counsel is one consideration feeding into that decision, alongside everything else about how the defendant behaved. A defendant treating it as a shield is claiming a good deal more than the article gives him.
Test the assertion rather than accepting it
Was advice actually sought before the act, on this question, from someone in a position to give it, and was what he did in fact what he was advised to do? Advice obtained afterwards, or on a different point, is not what the article describes, and the party invoking it is the one who has to make it good. Bear in mind too that Article 2234 requires you to show entitlement to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before a court will consider exemplary ones, so the ordinary heads of loss come first.
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 2229 — Exemplary Damages Defined
- Civil Code, Article 2233 — Not a Matter of Right