Short answer. Yes, in principle. Article 2189 makes provinces, cities and municipalities liable for damages for death or injuries suffered by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings and other public works under their control or supervision. Control or supervision is the fact that decides it.

What the law says

Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control or supervision.

Civil Code, Article 2189 — Liability of Local Governments for Defective Roads. Read the full provision →

Control or supervision, not ownership

The article does not ask who owns the road. It fastens liability on the province, city or municipality having the public work under their control or supervision, which is why the first thing to establish is who was in charge of that stretch of street. National roads, subdivision roads and roads opened up by a utility can all run through a city without being under the city's control, and suing the wrong body is the commonest way a claim of this kind fails. Ask who opened the manhole, who maintains the line beneath it, and under whose authority the street sits.

What a defective condition means

Defective condition is the operative phrase, and it describes the state of the thing rather than anyone's motive. An uncovered manhole is the textbook instance: the road is not in the condition a road is supposed to be in, and a person using it normally is hurt because of that. The article lists roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works, so it reaches well beyond carriageways. What it does not do is make a local government the insurer of everyone who falls over in public, because the harm must come by reason of the defect itself.

Injury is what it compensates, and your own care counts

The article speaks of the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person. It is about physical harm, so a damaged vehicle or a ruined phone is not what this provision is for, whatever other rules on damages may reach them. Your own conduct matters too. Article 2179 denies recovery where the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, and Article 2214 provides that contributory negligence in quasi-delicts shall reduce the damages recoverable. Expect questions about whether the hole was visible, whether it was barricaded, and what you were doing.

The scene disappears quickly

Photograph the opening before it is repaired, from far enough back to show the street, and include something for scale. The city may close it within days, and after that the evidence is gone. Note the exact location, the date and time, the lighting, and whether any barricade or warning was present. Get medical attention and keep every record, since injury is what the article compensates. Ask the barangay for an incident record. A claim like this also runs against a prescriptive period, so the date of the accident is worth pinning down precisely and acting on early.

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.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.