El Marco de Políticas para la Adaptación (MPA)

Art. 2203. The party suffering loss or injury must

exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question.

Lim and Gunnaban vs. CA (2002): Article 2203 of the

to exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question. One who is injured then by the wrongful or negligent act of another should exercise reasonable care and diligence to minimize the resulting damage. Anyway, he can recover from the wrongdoer money lost in reasonable efforts to preserve the property injured and for injuries incurred in attempting to prevent damage to it.

BURDEN OF PROOF

The DEFENDANT has the burden of proof to establish that the victim, by the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family, could have mitigated the damages. In the absence of such proof, the amount of damages cannot be reduced. Note:

The victim is required only to take such steps as an ordinary prudent man would reasonably adopt for his own interest.

RULES IN CRIMES

Art. 2204. In crimes, the damages to be adjudicated

may be respectively increased or lessened according to the aggravating or mitigating circumstances. IN QUASI-DELICTS

Art. 2214. In quasi-delicts, the contributory

negligence of the plaintiff shall reduce the damages that he may recover.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

Genobiagon vs. CA (1989): The alleged contributory

negligence of the victim, if any, does not exonerate the accused in criminal cases committed through reckless imprudence, since one cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his own negligence.

Rakes vs. Atlantic (1907): If so, the disobedience of

the plaintiff in placing himself in danger contributed in some degree to the injury as a proximate, although not as its primary cause.

(Supreme Court in this case cited numerous foreign precedents, mostly leaning towards the doctrine that contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff did not exonerate defendant from liability, but it led to the reduction of damages awarded to the plantiff.)

Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co. (1918): In determining

the question of contributory negligence in performing such act — that is to say, whether the passenger acted prudently or recklessly — the age, sex, and physical condition of the passenger are circumstances necessarily affecting the safety of the passenger, and should be considered.

PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE

Manila Electric vs. Remonquillo (1956): Even if Manila

Electric is negligent, in order that it may be held liable, its negligence must be the proximate and direct cause of the accident.

Bernardo vs. Legaspi (1914): Both of the parties

contributed to the proximate cause; hence, they cannot recover from one another.

IN CONTRACTS, QUASI-CONTRACTS AND QUASI-DELICTS

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.

INSTANCES OF GROUNDS FOR MITIGATION OF DAMAGES (a) For Contracts:

(1) Violation of terms of the contract by the plaintiff himself;

(2) Obtention or enjoyment of benefit under the contract by the plaintiff himself;

(3) Defendant acted upon advice of counsel in cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded such as under Articles 2230, 2231, and 2232;

(4) Defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff’s injury or loss.

(b) For Quasi-Contracts:

(1) In cases where exemplary damages are to be awarded such as in Art. 2232;

(2) Defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff’s injury or loss.

(1) That the loss would have resulted in any event because of the negligence or omission of another, and where such negligence or omission is the immediate and proximate cause of the damage or injury;

(2) Defendant has done his best to lessen the plaintiff’s injury or loss.

RULE WHEN CONTRACTING PARTIES ARE IN PARI DELICTO Generally, parties to a void agreement cannot expect the aid of the law; the courts leave them as they are, because they are deemed in pari delicto or "in equal fault." In pari delicto is "a universal doctrine which holds that no action arises, in equity or at law, from an illegal contract; no suit can be maintained for its specific performance, or to recover the property agreed to be sold or delivered, or the money agreed to be paid, or damages for its violation; and where the parties are in pari delicto, no affirmative relief of any kind will be given to one against the other." This rule, however, is subject to exceptions that permit the return of that which may have been given under a void contract to:

(a) the innocent party (Arts. 1411-1412, Civil Code); (b) the debtor who pays usurious interest (Art. 1413,

Civil Code);

(c) the party repudiating the void contract before the illegal purpose is accomplished or before damage is caused to a third person and if public interest is subserved by allowing recovery (Art. 1414, Civil Code);

(d) the incapacitated party if the interest of justice so demands (Art. 1415, Civil Code);

(e) the party for whose protection the prohibition by law is intended if the agreement is not illegal per se but merely prohibited and if public policy would be enhanced by permitting recovery (Art. 1416, Civil Code); and

(f) the party for whose benefit the law has been intended such as in price ceiling laws (Art. 1417, Civil Code) and labor laws (Arts. 1418-1419, Civil Code).

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES

Art. 2227. Liquidated damages, whether intended as

an indemnity or a penalty, shall be equitably reduced if they are iniquitous or unconscionable.

COMPROMISE

Art. 2031. The courts may mitigate the damages to

be paid by the losing party who has shown a sincere desire for a compromise.

Miscellaneous Rules