Short answer. Yes. The law does not require intent to harm: every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. Careless conduct that causes damage contrary to law can make you liable just as much as a deliberate act.
What the law says
Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same
Civil Code, Article 20 — Damage Contrary to Law. Read the full provision →
The rule covers both mental states equally
The provision names two distinct ways liability can arise: acting wilfully, meaning deliberately, or acting negligently, meaning carelessly without intending the resulting harm. Both sit side by side in the same sentence with the same consequence attached. There is no separate, lighter standard reserved for careless conduct — the obligation to indemnify follows either way, whether the damage was intended or simply the result of not being careful enough.
Why 'never meant to harm them' does not end the analysis
Lack of intent to harm someone answers the wilfulness question, but it does not answer the negligence question. Carelessness — failing to exercise the care a reasonable person would have exercised in the same situation — is treated as its own independent basis for liability, precisely because damage caused by inattention or a failure to take reasonable precautions is still real damage to the person who suffered it.
The damage still has to be 'contrary to law'
The provision is not limitless. It applies to damage caused contrary to law, which means the conduct causing the harm has to be measured against some legal standard or duty that was breached, whether wilfully or negligently. Whether your particular carelessness meets that description depends on the specific facts and what duty of care actually applied to your situation at the time the damage occurred.
What being liable actually requires you to do
If your negligence is found to have caused damage contrary to law, the remedy the provision describes is straightforward: you must indemnify — that is, compensate — the person harmed for the damage caused. This is a compensatory obligation aimed at making the injured party whole for what your carelessness actually cost them, not a punitive one meant to punish you beyond the actual loss caused.
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.
- Social Security System vs. Debbie Ubana, G.R. No. 200114, August 24, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Alfonso T. Yuchengco vs. The Manila Chronicle Publishing Corporation, et al, G.R. No. 184315, November 28, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Nestor Cabasal and Ma. Belen Cabasal vs. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 233846, November 18, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sps. Oscar and Gina Gironella vs Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 194515, September 16, 2015 — read the decision on LawPhil →