Short answer. No. In crimes and quasi-delicts the defendant is liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of, and Article 2202 says expressly that it is not necessary that those damages have been foreseen or could reasonably have been foreseen.
What the law says
the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.
Civil Code, Article 2202 — Damages in Crimes and Quasi-Delicts. Read the full provision →
Why the rule here is stricter than in contract
Set the two provisions side by side. Article 2201 confines an obligor in good faith to consequences the parties foresaw or could reasonably have foreseen when the obligation was constituted, because those parties chose each other and set their own terms. A driver and the person he hits chose nothing. There is no bargain to read foreseeability into, so the law does not ask what he had in mind; it asks what his act actually produced. That is why Article 2202 ends by saying in terms that foresight is not necessary.
“Natural and probable” is still a limit
The article is not open-ended, and the limiting phrase is the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. That is a test of causation rather than of foresight. A loss that does not follow from the collision in the ordinary course of things falls outside it however genuine it is, and the further down the chain a consequence sits, the harder it becomes to keep it there. So the question to ask about each item of loss is not whether the driver saw it coming, but whether it came from the crash at all.
Where it matters most: an injury worse than the impact
A person with a fragile spine, a heart condition or a healing fracture may suffer far more from a modest collision than any driver could have anticipated, and Article 2202 removes the argument that this was unforeseeable. What the driver is entitled to contest is the connection: whether the deterioration came from the collision or from the pre-existing condition running its own course. That is a medical question rather than a legal one, and it is answered by clinical records rather than by argument about what was probable.
Build the causal chain, not the sympathy
Get treated immediately and keep every record from the first consultation onwards, because a gap between the accident and the first complaint is the opening a defendant will use. Keep receipts for treatment, therapy, transport and help at home. If you have lost the ability to work as you did, that is separately provided for: Article 2205 allows recovery for loss or impairment of earning capacity in cases of temporary or permanent personal injury, and it is proved with employment and income records rather than with an estimate.
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.
- Spouses Enrique Llonillo and Marites Llonillo vs. People of the Phillippines, G.R. No. 246787, January 30, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Davao Del Norte Electric Cooperative, Representative By Maria Teresa M. David vs. Heirs of Victorino Lucas, G.R. No. 254395, June 14, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Romulo Abrogar and Erlinda Abrogar vs. Cosmos Bottling Company and Intergames, Inc, G.R. No. 164749, March 15, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Mariano Mendoza and Elvira Lim vs. Spouses Leonora J. Gomez and Gabriel V. Gomez, G.R. No. 160110, June 18, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 2201 — Damages in Contracts and Quasi-Contracts
- Civil Code, Article 2205 — Loss of Earning Capacity and Business Standing