Short answer. It can. The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimise the damages resulting from the act or omission in question. Harm that ordinary care would have avoided may therefore fall outside what the person at fault has to answer for.
What the law says
The party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question.
Civil Code, Article 2203 — Duty to Mitigate. Read the full provision →
What the law says
In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of.
Civil Code, Article 2202 — Damages in Crimes and Quasi-Delicts. Read the full provision →
The injured party has a duty too
It surprises people that the Code places an obligation on the victim, but it does: the party suffering loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question. The standard is the familiar one — the care an ordinarily prudent person takes of their own affairs — and it applies to the aftermath. Damage that this diligence would have prevented is damage the injured party allowed to happen, and the article's effect is that the defendant does not carry it.
Reasonable steps, not extraordinary ones
The duty is bounded by the same standard that creates it. A good father of a family does what is sensible and within reach; he does not exhaust himself or his means. Someone who could not afford treatment, who was told to wait, who had no access to care where they live, or who followed the advice they were actually given has not failed this test. The question is always what was reasonably open to this person in these circumstances — not what an unhurried observer with money and hindsight would have arranged.
Mitigation is not contributory negligence
The two are easily confused and answer to different provisions. Contributory negligence under Article 2214 concerns the claimant's want of care in bringing about the injury, and it reduces the damages recoverable. Article 2203 concerns conduct after the injury, when the loss was already occurring and could have been contained. Both can be raised in one case, and they cut at different points on the timeline. Article 2202 sets the outer frame in quasi-delicts: the defendant is liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of.
How the record decides it
Delay is not fatal, but unexplained delay is expensive. If treatment was postponed, the reason should be visible in the file — the referral you were waiting for, the cost you could not meet, the advice you followed, the appointment you were given. Keep the medical documents in date order and note when symptoms changed. What a defendant argues in these cases is that the worsening came from the delay rather than from the collision, and the answer to that argument is contemporaneous records rather than recollection.
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.
- Roxaco-Asia Hospitality Corporation vs. Gulf Canary Contruction and Development, Inc. and Asia United Insurance, Inc, G.R. No. 246250, September 29, 2025 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- D.M. Ragasa Enterprises, Inc., vs. Banco De Oro, Inc. (Formerly Equitable Pci Bank, Inc.), G.R. No. 190512, June 20, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Joyce V. Ardiente vs. Spouses Javier and Ma. Theresa Pastofide, G.R. No. 161921, July 17, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Abelardo Lim and Esmadito Gunnaban vs. Court of Appeals and Donato H. Gonzales, G.R. No. 125817, January 16, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 2214 — Contributory Negligence Mitigates
- Civil Code, Article 2202 — Damages in Crimes and Quasi-Delicts