Short answer. Yes, presumed, not proved. Article 2185 says that unless there is proof to the contrary, a person driving a motor vehicle is presumed negligent if at the time of the mishap he was violating any traffic regulation. The presumption shifts the burden; it does not end the case.
What the law says
it is presumed that a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic regulation
Civil Code, Article 2185 — Presumption of Negligence in Traffic Cases. Read the full provision →
Three conditions are built into the wording
Read the article closely and it sets three conditions, each of which can fail. The person must have been driving a motor vehicle, so a cyclist or a pedestrian who ignored a signal is outside it. There must have been a violation of a traffic regulation, which is a question about the traffic rules themselves rather than about general carelessness. And the violation must have existed at the time of the mishap, so an expired licence discovered afterwards, or a rule broken a kilometre back and no longer in play, is not what the article describes. Beating a red light on impact fits all three.
It is rebuttable, and that is the point
What you get is a presumption, and the article is explicit that it holds only unless there is proof to the contrary. The other driver is entitled to show that he was not in fact negligent despite the violation, and if he does, the presumption falls away. Its real value is that it changes who has to explain himself. Without it you would be building negligence from scratch out of skid marks and testimony; with it, the violation carries you, and the burden of dislodging that sits with him.
Negligence is one element, not the whole claim
Article 2176 obliges a person who by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, to pay for the damage done, so you still have to show damage and that his negligence caused it. Your own conduct matters as well. Article 2179 bars recovery where the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, and Article 2214 provides that in quasi-delicts the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages he may recover. The presumption against him does not insulate you from either.
The violation is a fact you must prove
Fix it early, because it decays fast: the police report and its sketch, the citation if one was issued, dashcam or CCTV footage from establishments at the corner, and the names of anyone who saw the signal. Photograph the intersection while it still looks as it did, including the position of the lights and any obstruction. Repair estimates and medical records establish the damage side, which the presumption does nothing for. What settles most collisions of this kind is whichever record independently shows the light was red.
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.
- Jonas Añonuevo vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 130003, October 20, 2004 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Michael John Robles vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 223810, August 2, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Francis O. Morales vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 240337, January 4, 2022 — 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 →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 2176 — Quasi-Delict Defined (Culpa Aquiliana)
- Civil Code, Article 2179 — Contributory vs. Proximate Negligence