Photo from Unsplash | Wesley Tingey
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the court shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. (Article 2179, Civil Code of the Philippines)
In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. (Article 2214, Civil Code of the Philippines)
“Quod quis ex culap sua damnum sentit, no intelligitur damnum sentire”
(He who suffers damage by his own fault has no right to complain.)
Contributory negligence is defined as “the act of omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured which, concurring with the defendant’s negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury.” (Philippine National Railway Corporation v. Purificacion Vizcara, et al., G.R. No. 190022, February 15, 2012)
The Civil Code of the Philippines is explicit:
When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the court shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. (Article 2179, Civil Code of the Philippines)
In quasi-delicts, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover. (Article 2214, Civil Code of the Philippines)
It is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard which he is required to conform for his own protection. (Philippine National Railway Corporation v. Purificacion Vizcara, et al., Id.)
As the determination of the mitigation of the defendant’s liability varies depending on the circumstances of each case (Nelen Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon, G.R. No. 169709, February 23, 2005), it must be noted that the fact that contributory negligence transpired is a factual matter that must be proven. (Anna Marie Gumabon v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 202514, July 25, 2016)
In the case of Ma-ao Sugar Central, Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 83491, August 27, 1990), to hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act brought about by his injuries in disregard of the warnings or signs of an impending danger to health and body.
What happens if the court finds that there exists contributory negligence?
In the case of M. H. Rakes v. The Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Co. (G.R. No. L-1719, January 23, 1907), it was held that “any negligence, however slight, on the part of the person injured which is one of the causes proximately contributing to his injury, bars his recovery.”
A plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence. – this is the underlying precept of contributory negligence as highlighted in the case of National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Casionan, G.R. No. 165969, November 27, 2008)
Jurisprudence says:
“The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence. If indeed there was contributory negligence on the part of the victim, then it is proper to reduce the award for damages. This is in consonance with the Civil Code provision that liability will be mitigated in consideration of the contributory negligence of the injured party.”
In what cases is contributory negligence material?
The defense of contributory negligence is only applicable in civil cases.
Jurisprudence says:
“The defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases committed through reckless imprudence, since once cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his own negligence. (Gregorio Genobiagon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 40452, October 12, 1989)
Did you know that contributory negligence cannot be imputed to children below nine years old?
In the case of Jarco Marketing Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999), the Supreme Court, citing Former Judge Cezar S. Sangco’s Philippine Law on Torts and Damages, ruled that:
“In our jurisdiction, a person under nine years of age is conclusively presumed to have acted without discernment, and is, on that account, exempt from criminal liability. The same presumption and a like exemption from criminal liability obtains in a case of a person over nine and under fifteen years of age, unless it is shown that he has acted with discernment. Since negligence may be a felony and a quasi-delict and required discernment as a condition of liability, either criminal or civil, a child under nine years of age is, by analogy, conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence; and that the presumption of lack of discernment or incapacity for negligence in the case of a child over nine but under fifteen years of age is a rebuttable one, under our law. The rule, therefore, is that a child under nine years of age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law.”
Related Article/s:
Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duties
Serious Misconduct and Gross Negligence
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.