Short answer. He is still liable. The Civil Code makes responsibility for negligence demandable in every kind of obligation, with no exemption for a small lapse. What the article does allow is for a court to regulate that liability according to the circumstances — which softens the amount, not the responsibility.
What the law says
Responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances.
Civil Code, Article 1172 — Liability for Negligence. Read the full provision →
Slightness is not a defence
Article 1172 provides that responsibility arising from negligence in the performance of every kind of obligation is also demandable, but such liability may be regulated by the courts, according to the circumstances. The first half of that sentence is unconditional. It says every kind of obligation and it draws no line above which negligence counts and below which it does not. A supplier who was careless is answerable whether the carelessness was gross or momentary. The size of the lapse belongs to the second half of the sentence — how much is paid — and not to the first, which is whether anything is owed at all.
What 'regulated by the courts' actually means
This is a power to moderate, exercised case by case, and the article deliberately supplies no formula. It does not set percentages, tiers or a discount for minor fault, and nobody can tell you in advance what proportion of a claim a court would allow. What the phrase according to the circumstances invites is an assessment of the whole situation: what was undertaken, what care the circumstances called for, how the loss came about, and how the parties behaved once it did. Anyone who quotes you a fixed reduction for slight negligence is describing something the provision does not contain.
Your own conduct is part of the circumstances
It is worth being honest about the other side of the ledger before pressing the claim. If the goods were delivered in packaging that invited damage, if the storage conditions were specified by you, or if you delayed inspecting or collecting them, those facts belong to the circumstances the court weighs. So does anything you did to limit the loss after discovering it. Contributory conduct rarely destroys a negligence claim, but it very often shapes the figure, and it is better to have accounted for it yourself than to meet it for the first time in the supplier's answer.
Where the contract may already have settled it
Before arguing about degrees of negligence, read what the two of you signed. Storage and supply arrangements frequently contain clauses that cap liability, allocate the risk of damage, require notice of loss within a stated period, or fix a sum payable on default — and where such a clause validly applies, it governs ahead of any general assessment. Gather the agreement, the delivery and inspection records, photographs of the goods as received, and your correspondence with the supplier after the discovery. That file, rather than the label "minor", is what determines what the claim is worth.
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.
- Joseph Harry Poole-Blunden vs. Union Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 205838, November 29, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Chinatrust Commercial Bank vs. Philip Turner, G.R. No. 191458, July 3, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- BF Corporation vs. Verdenberg International Corporation, G.R. No. 174387, December 9, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Philippine National Bank vs. Carmelita S. Santos, et al, G.R. No. 208293, December 10, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →