Text of the provision
Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.
(1101)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
Those who in performing their obligations are guilty of fraud (dolo), negligence (culpa), or delay (mora) — or who in any manner contravene the tenor of the obligation — are liable for damages. This is the general basis of contractual damages.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 1169 — Delay (Mora).
- Article 1171 — Waiver of Future Fraud Is Void.
Cases citing this article
- Sps. Romeo Pajares and Ida T. Pajares vs. Remarkable Laundry and Dry Cleaning, represented by Archemedes G. Solis, G.R. No. 212690, February 20, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Camarines Sur Teachers and Employees Association, Inc., represented by its President, Dr. Antonio A, G.R. No. 199666, October 7, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Ma. Luisa A. Pineda vs. Virginia Zuñiga Vda. De Vega, G.R. No. 233774, April 10, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- D.M. Ragasa Enterprises, Inc., vs. Banco De Oro, Inc. (Formerly Equitable Pci Bank, Inc.), G.R. No. 190512, June 20, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Luis Juan L. Virata and UEM-Mara Philippines Corporation vs. Alejandro Ng Wee Westmont Investment Corp., et al./Westmont Investment, Corporation vs. Alejandro Ng Wee/Manuel Estrella vs. Alejandro Ng Wee/Simeon Cua, et al. vs. Alejandro Ng Wee/Anthony T. Reyes vs. Alejandro Ng Wee, et al, G.R. No. 220926 / G.R. No. 221058 / G.R. No. 221109 / G.R. No. 221135 / G.R. No. 221218, July 5, 2017 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.