Text of the provision
Art. 2215. In contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts, the court may equitably mitigate the damages under circumstances other than the case referred to in the preceding article, as in the following instances:
(1) That the plaintiff himself has contravened the terms of the contract;
(2) That the plaintiff has derived some benefit as a result of the contract;
(3) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded, that the defendant acted upon the advice of counsel;
(4) That the loss would have resulted in any event;
(5) That since the filing of the action, the defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff's loss or injury.
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
In contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts the court may equitably mitigate damages in six situations — among them where the plaintiff contributed to the loss, where the defendant acted on a humanitarian sentiment, where the loss would be disproportionate to the defendant's means, and where the defendant's fault was not the sole cause.
Questions about this provision
- Can the court cut down my damages because I also broke part of the same contract?
- The defendant says he only acted on his lawyer's advice — does that spare him from exemplary damages?
- The loss would have happened even without the defendant's act — does that reduce what I can recover?
Related provisions
- Article 2214 — Contributory Negligence Mitigates.
- Article 2216 — No Proof of Pecuniary Loss Required.
Cases citing this article
- In the Matter of Urgent Petition for the Release of Prisoners on Humanitarian Grounds, G.R. No. 252117, July 28, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Tondo Medical Center, represented by Dr. Maria Isabelita M. Estrella vs. Rolando Rante, doing, G.R. No. 230645, July 1, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Victoria Ong vs. Ernesto Bogñalbal, et al, G.R. No. 149140, September 12, 2006 — 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.