Degrees of Diligence: Extraordinary, Ordinary or Slight

Article 1163. Every person obliged to give something is also obliged to take care
of it with the proper diligence of a good father of a family, unless the law or the
stipulation of the parties requires another standard of care.

The first clause of the above-mentioned article talks about bonus pater familias.

1. Bonus Pater Familias (Ordinary Diligence, Ordinary Foresight, Ordinary Care)

In obligations to give (real obligations), the obligor has the duty to take care of
the thing due with the diligence of a good father of a family pending delivery.
This phrase is equated with ordinary care or that care which a reasonably
prudent person exercises over his own property.
In the absence of any stipulation, the general rule is Bonus Pater Familias will
apply. Except (1) if it the law so provides, or (2) if it is stipulated by the parties.

The second clause of the same article talks about diligence other than that of the
ordinary care. These standards of care can be extraordinary or slight diligence.

2. Extraordinary Diligence
This higher degree of diligence will only prevail than that of the ordinary standard
of care when:

a. It is the law provides for such standard of care

Common carriers (person or company engaged in the
transportation of persons and/or cargoes) is bound to carry the
passengers safely as far as human care and foresight can provide,
using utmost (extraordinary) diligence of very cautious persons,
with a due regard for all the circumstances.1

1 Article 1755 of the Civil Code

 Banks are duty-bound to treat the deposit accounts of their
depositors with the highest degree of care where the fiduciary
nature of their relationship with their depositors is concerned. But
such degree of diligence is not expected to be exerted by banks in
commercial transactions that do not involve their fiduciary
relationship with their depositors.2

b. The stipulation of the parties provides for such care.

3. Slight Diligence

This standard of care can ONLY be applied if it is stipulated by the parties of a

contract. This standard of care usually applies on charters.

Factors to be considered:

The diligence required depends upon:

1. The nature of the obligation, and
2. Corresponding circumstances of
a) Persons (Sick, elderly, people with disabilities, etc.)
b) Time (Nighttime more cautious); and
c) Place (Pedestrian lanes, school zones, etc.)

Dispensing any diligence is a violation.

Without the accessory duty to take care of the thing, the debtor would be able to afford
being negligent and he would not be liable even if the property is lost or destroyed, thus
rendering illusory the obligation to give. 3

2 Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118492. August 15, 2001, 363 SCRA 51

3 8 Manresa 35-37
In the case of Asian Terminals v. Philam4

The court ruled that, Westwind and ATI must observe the extraordinary diligence
to handle the said merchandise on account to their value and difficulty and
acquisition. Section 3 (6) of Public Act No. 521, or the Carriage of Goods by Sea
Act (COGSA) of the 74 US Congress as referenced by Commonwealth Act No.
65 contemplated that the removal of the goods to the custody of the person
entitled to the delivery is the prima facie evidence of the consummation of the
delivery unless a report of damages or general nature of damages is issued in
writing before the delivery was said consummated.
Both petitioners have solidary liability over the damages, for failure to exercise
extraordinary diligence, where slight negligence is enough to incur any liability.

In the case of Gacal vs PAL5:

The court ruled that, common carriers are required to exercise extraordinary
diligence in their vigilance over the goods and for the safety of passengers
transported by them, according so all the circumstances of each case (Article
1733). The source of a common carrier's legal liability is the contract of carriage,
and by entering into said contract, it binds itself to carry the passengers safely as
far as human care and foresight can provide. There is breach of this obligation if
it fails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all the circumstances of the
case in exercise of the utmost diligence of a very cautious person

In the case of PAL vs CA6:

4 Asian Terminals, Inc. v. PHILAM Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 181163,July 24, 2013

5 Gacal v. PAL, G.R. 55300, March 15, 1990, 183 SCRA 189

6 PAL v. CAG.R. No. L-82619, September 15, 1993, 226 SCRA 423
 The court ruled that, the contract of air carriage is a peculiar one. Being imbued
with public interest, the law requires common carriers to carry the passengers
safely as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence
of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the circumstances.