Short answer. Yes. The Civil Code creates a prima facie presumption of negligence when a death or injury results from a person's possession of dangerous substances such as poison. Your neighbour bears the burden of rebutting that presumption, unless their possession of the poison was indispensable to their occupation.
What the law says
There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business.
Civil Code, Article 2188 — Prima Facie Negligence — Dangerous Weapons and Substances. Read the full provision →
The presumption created by Article 2188
Article 2188 of the Civil Code establishes a powerful presumption: There is prima facie presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant if the death or injury results from his possession of dangerous weapons or substances, such as firearms and poison, except when the possession or use thereof is indispensable in his occupation or business. When a child is harmed by a poisonous substance your neighbour kept at home, the law presumes that the neighbour was negligent. You do not have to prove they acted carelessly — the fact that they possessed the poison and a child was injured by it is enough to start the case against them.
What prima facie means
A prima facie presumption is one that stands until rebutted. It shifts the burden to the defendant — the neighbour — to explain why they should not be held liable. If they cannot provide a satisfactory explanation that overcomes the presumption, liability follows. The presumption does not guarantee that the neighbour will be held liable; it means the starting position in the case is against them. They must actively show that they were not negligent — for example, that the substance was properly stored, locked away, and inaccessible to children under reasonable precautions.
The occupation or business exception
The presumption does not apply if the possession of the dangerous substance is indispensable in the defendant's occupation or business. A pest control technician who stores pesticides as part of their work, or a laboratory technician who handles toxic compounds professionally, may be in a different position than a private individual who keeps poison at home with no professional justification. Even for those whose occupation requires such substances, indispensable does not mean exempt from all care — it means the presumption of negligence from mere possession does not automatically apply.
What the family should do
The death or injury of a child from an ingested substance is a serious matter. If your neighbour possessed the poison at home without professional justification, Article 2188 gives the family a strong starting position in any civil claim for damages. The relevant facts to document include: what the substance was, where it was stored, how the child gained access to it, and whether the neighbour had any business or occupational reason for keeping it. A claim must be filed within the applicable prescriptive period, so obtaining advice on timing is important.
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.
- Private Hospitals Association of the Philipines, Inc. (PHAPI) Represented by Dr. Rustico Jimenez vs. Hon. Salvador Medialdea Executive Secretary and Acting Secretary of DOH…, G.R. No. 234448, November 6, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →