Short answer. Yes. Article 2194 of the Civil Code provides that the responsibility of two or more persons liable for a quasi-delict is solidary. This means you can pursue any one of the three for the entire amount of your damages, not just their individual share of the fault.
What the law says
The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary.
Civil Code, Article 2194 — Solidary Liability for a Quasi-Delict. Read the full provision →
Solidary liability under Article 2194
Article 2194 of the Civil Code states plainly: The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasi-delict is solidary. Solidary liability means that each liable person is responsible for the full amount of the damage — not merely their proportional share. When three people were all negligent and their combined negligence caused your injury, each of them is on the hook for everything you suffered. You do not have to pursue all three, divide the claim among them, or wait for each to pay their part. You can demand the full amount from whichever one you choose.
What solidary liability means for your claim
In practical terms, solidary liability gives you significant flexibility in enforcement. You can file your claim against only one of the three, only two of them, or all three — and you can collect the full damages from whichever defendant you choose to pursue. If one defendant is insolvent, you can pursue the others for the full amount without that insolvency reducing your recovery. If one is easy to locate and the others are not, you are not dependent on finding everyone. Solidary liability protects the injured party from having their recovery fragmented across multiple defendants, some of whom may be judgment-proof.
Rights among the co-defendants themselves
While you can recover the full amount from any one defendant, that does not mean the paying defendant bears the entire economic loss permanently. Among themselves, co-defendants in a quasi-delict case may have rights of contribution — the defendant who paid the full amount can seek reimbursement from the others for their respective shares of the liability. This is a matter between the defendants, not something you need to manage as the injured party. Your right under Article 2194 is to full recovery from any one of them; how they sort out the internal allocation of responsibility is their concern, not yours.
Why this matters when defendants have unequal resources
Article 2194's solidary liability rule is particularly valuable when the defendants have unequal financial resources. If one of the three negligent parties is wealthy and the others are not, you can direct your claim entirely at the one with the means to pay. You are not limited to each defendant's proportionate share of the fault, and you do not have to collect fragments from each. The logic behind the rule is protective: the injury was caused by all three acting together, and the victim should not bear the risk that some of the wrongdoers cannot pay. The full burden of making the victim whole falls on whichever liable party the victim selects to pursue.