Short answer. Yes, if your carelessness merely contributed to the harm. Under Article 2179, when your own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of your injury you recover nothing; but if it was only contributory and the defendant's lack of due care was the real cause, you may still recover, with the court reducing the award.
What the law says
if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded
Civil Code, Article 2179 — Contributory vs. Proximate Negligence. Read the full provision →
Two very different roles your negligence can play
Article 2179 draws a sharp line based on what your carelessness actually caused. If the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. In that situation you are, in effect, the author of your own harm, and the law gives you nothing. But if his negligence was only contributory — a factor, not the real cause — and the immediate and proximate cause was the defendant's lack of due care, then you may recover damages. The whole outcome turns on which of these two descriptions fits the facts of your case.
Contributory negligence reduces, it does not bar
Where your negligence is only contributory, you are not thrown out of court. The article says the plaintiff may recover, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. The award is trimmed to reflect your share of the fault rather than wiped out. This is a middle path: the defendant, whose want of care was the proximate cause, still pays, but not for the portion of the loss your own carelessness brought on. How large the reduction is depends on the court's assessment of how much your conduct contributed to the injury.
'Proximate cause' is the pivot
The article repeatedly uses the phrase immediate and proximate cause. Proximate cause is the cause that, in a natural and continuous sequence, produces the injury — the real, operating reason it happened. If that is you, recovery is barred. If that is the defendant, and your role was a lesser contributing one, recovery stands but is reduced. Because so much rides on this classification, disputes under this article are usually fought over whose negligence was the true proximate cause and whose was merely contributory to the result.
What this means for your claim
Practically, admitting some carelessness does not automatically sink your case. The question a court asks is whether your negligence was the proximate cause of the harm or only a contributing factor to a harm the other party's negligence chiefly caused. If the latter, you keep a claim, though you should expect the damages to be moderated. The rule cuts both ways: it protects an injured person from losing everything over a minor lapse, while ensuring a defendant is not made to pay for harm the claimant substantially brought on themselves.
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.
- Allied Banking Corporation vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 188363, February 27, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Lambert S. Ramos vs. C.O.L. Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 184905, August 28, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Cresencia Achevara, Alfredo Achevara and Benigno Valdez vs. Elvira Ramos, John Arnel Ramos and Kristine Camille Ramos, G.R. No. 175172, September 29, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Flordeliza Mendoza vs. Mutya Soriano, et al, G.R. No. 164012, June 8, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →