Short answer. Possibly, if your fault was only contributory. Article 2179 bars recovery when your own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of your injury, but allows it when the defendant's lack of due care was the real cause and your negligence merely contributed, though the court will then mitigate the damages awarded.
What the law says
When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages.
Civil Code, Article 2179 — Contributory vs. Proximate Negligence. Read the full provision →
What the law says
But 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 →
Being the proximate cause of your own injury bars recovery
Article 2179 draws a critical distinction based on whose negligence actually caused the injury. It states that when the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. If your own carelessness was the real, direct cause of what happened to you, meaning the other party's conduct was not what actually produced your injury, the law does not let you shift that loss onto them. This is a complete bar, not a partial reduction, when your negligence is the proximate cause.
Contributory negligence still allows recovery, just reduced
Your situation is different if your fault was secondary rather than the real cause. The article continues: But 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. If the defendant's lack of due care was genuinely what caused the accident, and your own negligence only played a lesser, contributing role, you can still recover, though the amount awarded will be reduced to account for your share of the fault.
Why the distinction between proximate and contributory matters
The whole outcome turns on identifying which party's conduct was the actual, immediate cause of the injury, and which conduct, if any, was merely a contributing factor in the background. This is a factual question that depends on the specific sequence of events in the accident, not a fixed percentage of blame. Being found even partly negligent does not automatically reduce your damages by that same proportion; the law asks first whether your negligence was the proximate cause at all, and only reduces damages once contributory negligence, rather than proximate cause, is established.
What this means for your claim
If you were partly at fault, the key question is whether your negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of your own injury, in which case you generally cannot recover, or whether the defendant's lack of due care was actually what caused it, with your own fault only contributing, in which case you can recover but the damages will be mitigated to reflect your share of responsibility.
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 →