Short answer. No. Civil Code Article 1943 says the borrower does not answer for deterioration of the thing loaned that comes only from ordinary use and happens without any fault on the borrower's part. It is when your own fault contributed to the damage that this protection stops applying.
What the law says
The bailee does not answer for the deterioration of the thing loaned due only to the use thereof and without his fault.
Civil Code, Article 1943 — Deterioration From Use. Read the full provision →
What Article 1943 actually protects you from
The rule is precise: the bailee does not answer for the deterioration of the thing loaned due only to the use thereof and without his fault. "Bailee" here is the borrower under a loan for use — someone who received a thing to use for a time and then return it. If the item shows wear simply because you used it as intended, and nothing you did carelessly made that wear worse, this article says you are not liable for it.
Why both conditions have to be met
The protection has two parts working together: the deterioration must come only from the use itself, and it must happen without your fault. Both need to hold. If the item deteriorated for a reason that has nothing to do with ordinary use — an accident, mishandling, or something you did that a careful borrower would not have done — this article's shield does not extend to that damage, even if some of the wear was genuinely ordinary.
What the article leaves for the facts to decide
This text does not draw a bright line between ordinary use and fault in every situation — that depends on how the thing is normally used and whether you used it that way. It also does not say what you owe if fault did contribute to the damage; it only tells you what you do not owe when it did not. Whether particular wear counts as "due only to the use" is a factual question this article assumes rather than answers for you.
What to keep track of if this is disputed
Note the condition of the item when you borrowed it and how you actually used it, since that comparison is what shows whether the wear is consistent with ordinary use. If the lender is claiming you damaged it through carelessness, ask specifically what conduct they say caused it, rather than accepting a general claim that it "wasn't like that before". Bring both accounts, and any photos or messages from around the time you borrowed it, to a lawyer if the dispute genuinely continues unresolved.