Short answer. Article 1173 of the Civil Code measures negligence by the diligence required by the nature of the obligation, matched against the circumstances of the persons, time, and place involved. If the law or contract sets no specific standard, the diligence of a good father of a family applies by default.
What the law says
The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place.
Civil Code, Article 1173 — What Negligence Is. Read the full provision →
Negligence is measured against what was required, not a fixed rule
Article 1173 defines negligence functionally rather than with a rigid checklist: the fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. That means the required diligence is not the same across every situation — it depends on what kind of obligation was involved and the specific circumstances surrounding the person, the moment, and the setting.
Three variables the law tells you to weigh
The article names three things the required diligence must correspond with: the circumstances of the persons, of the time, and of the place. A professional handling a specialized task, an obligation performed under emergency conditions, or a duty carried out in a particular setting can each call for a different level of care. Whether someone was negligent is answered by asking what diligence those specific circumstances demanded, and whether that level of care was actually given.
When negligence overlaps with bad faith
Article 1173 also draws a connection to bad faith: when negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply. This signals that negligence is not always treated as a single, uniform category — where the negligence is severe or telling enough to show bad faith, the consequences shift to whatever those other provisions set out, rather than remaining governed only by the ordinary negligence standard.
The fallback standard when nothing else is specified
For situations where no more specific diligence is fixed by law or contract, the article supplies a default: 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. That is the ordinary, reasonably prudent standard, and it applies whenever a more specific rule is not already in place — so the first step in evaluating any claim of negligence is checking whether such a specific standard exists before falling back on this general one.
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 →