Short answer. Yes, with a condition. Article 2198 expressly adopts the principles of the general law on damages in the Philippines, but only insofar as those principles are not inconsistent with the Civil Code. Where the Code's own provisions apply, they prevail. General principles fill the gaps the Code does not cover.
What the law says
The principles of the general law on damages are hereby adopted insofar as they are not inconsistent with this Code.
Civil Code, Article 2198 — General Law on Damages Adopted. Read the full provision →
What Article 2198 does
The Civil Code devotes an entire title to damages, establishing categories such as actual, moral, nominal, temperate, liquidated, and exemplary damages. But no statutory list is exhaustive, and the law of damages has developed principles — in equity, in practice, and in jurisprudence from analogous systems — that the Code did not individually enumerate. Article 2198 solves this by adopting the principles of the general law on damages as a supplementary layer, ensuring that gaps in the enumerated rules do not leave genuine injuries without a legal remedy.
The consistency requirement
The adoption is conditional: it applies insofar as they are not inconsistent with this Code. This means that where the Civil Code's own provisions address a question, those provisions take precedence. A general principle that contradicts or undermines a specific Civil Code rule on damages cannot be imported. The function of Article 2198 is supplementation, not override. Parties who point to general principles must first show that the Civil Code does not already address the matter — and if it does, those Code provisions apply.
Why a gap-filling rule is necessary
No statutory framework can anticipate every form of loss. Novel forms of harm, especially those arising from technological change, professional relationships, or complex economic arrangements, may produce real injuries that fall between the expressly named damage categories. Article 2198 allows Philippine courts to draw on the broader body of damage principles — including equitable concepts developed in analogous legal systems — to recognize and compensate such injuries. Without this provision, a loss that did not fit neatly into one of the Code's named categories might go uncompensated even when equity clearly required a remedy.
Practical application
In practice, Article 2198 is most relevant when a party argues for a remedy not explicitly covered by the named damage categories. The court will ask first whether any provision of the Civil Code's title on damages governs the situation. If it does, that provision applies. If it does not — or if the Code provision is silent on a specific aspect of computation or availability — the general law on damages may fill the gap. The test is consistency: a principle that supplements the Code's structure is welcome; one that contradicts it is not.