Someone's carelessness injured me but it was not a crime — what law governs my right to compensation?

Where your right to compensation actually comes from

Article 1162 sends obligations of this kind to a specific part of the Civil Code: obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of this Book, and by special laws. Because the carelessness that injured you was not a crime, you are not pursuing a criminal case for damages; you are dealing with a civil obligation that arises directly from the negligent act itself, under this dedicated body of rules rather than under the law on contracts or crimes.

What makes an act a quasi-delict

Article 2176 defines the concept your claim rests on: whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. It goes on to specify that this kind of fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict. Since you describe an injury caused by someone's carelessness, not something arising out of a contract you had with them, your situation fits squarely within this definition, which is exactly why Article 1162 points obligations like yours to this chapter.

Why it matters that no contract linked you and the other person

The absence of a pre-existing contractual relationship is not a minor detail; it is part of what defines the claim as a quasi-delict rather than a breach of contract. If you and the person who injured you had a contract governing the very conduct that caused the harm, the applicable rules could be different. Because your case involves ordinary negligence between people without such a contractual relationship, it falls under the quasi-delict framework that Article 1162 designates for exactly these situations.

What this classification means for your claim

Being governed by the quasi-delict provisions means your entitlement to compensation depends on establishing the elements this body of law requires: an act or omission, fault or negligence, damage, and a causal connection between the negligence and the damage you suffered. It also means the source of your right is independent of whether any criminal case is ever filed over the same incident, since a quasi-delict claim exists in its own right under the Civil Code, separate from criminal liability for the same underlying conduct.

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.

• Avelino Casupanan and Roberto Capitulo vs. Mario Llavore Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, August 26, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Rafael Reyes Trucking Corp. vs. People of the Philippines and Rosario P. Dy, etc, G.R. No. 129029, April 3, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Supreme Transportation Liner, Inc. and Felix Q. Ruz vs. Antonio San Andres, G.R. No. 200444, August 15, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• San Ildefonso Lines, Inc., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 119771, April 24, 1998 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 1162 — Obligations From Quasi-Delicts
• Civil Code, Article 2176 — Quasi-Delict Defined (Culpa Aquiliana)