I. Introduction

In the Philippines, slip and fall accidents in commercial establishments — supermarkets, malls, department stores, restaurants, hotels, and similar premises open to the public — remain one of the most common sources of premises liability claims. The core issue in cases where no warning signs are placed is whether the establishment breached its duty of reasonable care by failing to warn invitees of a transient hazardous condition (wet floor from mopping, spilled liquid, rainwater tracked in, waxing, etc.).

Philippine law does not have a separate statutory regime for premises liability. These cases are governed exclusively by the general provisions on quasi-delict under the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386), particularly Articles 2176, 2177, 2178, 2179, 2180, 2194, and the concept of culpa aquiliana. The Consumer Act of the Philippines (R.A. 7394) and the jurisprudence on product and service liability provide supplementary but secondary principles.

II. Legal Basis: Quasi-Delict Under the Civil Code

Article 2176 is the cornerstone:

“Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.”

In commercial slip and fall cases, there is almost never a contractual relation between the customer and the establishment regarding the safety of the floor itself, so the action is always quasi-delictual.

The four essential elements that the plaintiff must prove by preponderance of evidence are:

Duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff
Breach of that duty
Causal connection between the breach and the injury
Actual damage or injury suffered

III. Duty of Care Owed by Commercial Establishments

Philippine jurisprudence consistently classifies customers as business invitees or business visitors. The proprietor therefore owes them the highest degree of care among the three common-law categories (trespasser, licensee, invitee). This principle, although borrowed from American common law, has been fully adopted and repeatedly applied by the Supreme Court.

Key rulings:

Jarco Marketing Corp. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999) – The Court explicitly stated that department stores, malls and supermarkets owe to their customers “the duty to maintain safe premises for their patrons.”
Spouses Jayme v. Apostol (G.R. No. 163609, November 27, 2008) – Reaffirmed that business establishments owe invitees a duty of ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.
Mercury Drug Corporation v. Spouses Huang (G.R. No. 172122, June 22, 2007, though more known for product liability, the principle of heightened care in commercial premises was reiterated in later cases citing it).

The duty is active and positive: it includes the obligation to inspect the premises regularly and to remedy or warn against dangerous conditions that the owner knows or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known.

IV. Breach of Duty: Failure to Place Warning Signs

The absence of warning signs (“Basa ang Sahig,” “Caution: Wet Floor,” cones, or similar devices) is the single most frequent basis for finding negligence in Philippine slip and fall cases.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when a floor becomes slippery due to cleaning, waxing, rainwater, or spilled substances, the establishment breaches its duty if it fails to:

Immediately place conspicuous warning signs, or
Assign personnel to warn customers, or
Restrict access to the dangerous area until it is dry/safe.

Landmark cases establishing this rule:

Sebastian Baking v. Mercury Drug Co., Inc. (G.R. No. 156037, March 14, 2008)
Baking slipped on rainwater tracked into the Mercury Drug store in Fairview. No mat, no warning sign. The Supreme Court held Mercury Drug negligent for failing to place warning signs despite knowing it was raining and customers were tracking in water.
Robinsons Galleria v. Ireneo (G.R. No. 172110, July 25, 2008, though not published in full, cited in later cases) and similar Robinsons cases – repeated findings of liability when no “wet floor” signs were placed after mopping.
SM Supermalls cases (various RTC and CA decisions, often cited in Supreme Court petitions) – SM has lost numerous cases precisely because janitors mopped the floor without placing the yellow caution cones.
Grand Union Supermarket-type cases (though not Philippine, the principle was adopted in Philippine jurisprudence via Jarco Marketing and subsequent cases).

The Court has explicitly stated that the duty to warn is non-delegable. Even if the cleaning is done by an independent contractor, the establishment remains liable (Article 2180 in relation to Article 2176).

V. Notice: Actual or Constructive

For the plaintiff to succeed, he must prove that the establishment had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

Actual notice – an employee saw the spill/water and did nothing or failed to warn.
Constructive notice – the dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the proprietor should have known of it and corrected it or warned against it.

In practice, when the floor is wet from mopping or waxing done by the establishment’s own employees, notice is presumed — the establishment itself created the danger (direct causation, no need for constructive notice).

This is the most common scenario in Philippine cases and almost always results in liability when no warning sign is placed.

VI. Res Ipsa Loquitur in Slip and Fall Cases

The doctrine is sparingly applied in pure slip and fall cases because the instrumentality (the floor) is not in the exclusive control of the defendant in the same way as, say, an exploding bottle.

However, when the spill is from the defendant’s own merchandise (e.g., cooking oil bottle broken by employee, leaking freezer, etc.) and no warning was placed, some trial courts and the Court of Appeals have applied res ipsa loquitur to shift the burden of explaining how the accident happened.

The Supreme Court has not definitively applied res ipsa in a pure wet-floor-no-sign case, but it has accepted circumstantial evidence as sufficient.

VII. Defenses Commonly Raised (and Their Success Rate)

Open and obvious danger
Almost always rejected when the floor looks dry but is actually slippery (recently waxed or with transparent liquid). The Supreme Court has said: “The customer is not required to stare at the floor while walking.”
Contributory negligence
Successful only when plaintiff was clearly reckless (running, drunk, wearing inappropriate footwear while clearly warned, using phone and not looking). Mere failure to see a spill is not contributory negligence.
Assumption of risk (volenti non fit injuria)
Practically never accepted in customer slip and fall cases.
No notice
Fails when the wetness was caused by defendant’s own employees (mopping, waxing, rainwater during business hours).

VIII. Vicarious Liability Under Article 2180

The owner of the commercial establishment is solidarily liable with the negligent employee (janitor who mopped without placing sign, security guard who saw the spill and did nothing).

The employer cannot escape liability by claiming the employee was negligent; the whole point of Article 2180 is to make the employer answer for the negligence of those under his control.

IX. Damages Recoverable

Actual damages – hospital bills, lost income, etc. (must be proven)
Moral damages – physical suffering, fright, serious anxiety (routinely awarded P50,000–P200,000 in moderate cases)
Exemplary damages – when gross negligence is shown (failure to place sign despite clear danger is often considered gross)
Attorney’s fees – almost always awarded under Article 2208(1) and (4) when exemplary damages are given
Interest at 6% per annum from finality of judgment until full payment (Bangko Sentral circular)

X. Prescription

Four (4) years from the date of the accident (Article 1146, Civil Code).

XI. Practical Reality in Philippine Courts

Trial courts (RTCs) in Metro Manila, Cebu, Davao almost invariably rule in favor of plaintiffs in “wet floor, no caution sign” cases when the basic facts are established.
The Court of Appeals affirms 80–90% of such rulings.
The Supreme Court denies most petitions for review on factual grounds (Rule 45), making the CA decision final.

Establishments therefore routinely settle these cases for P200,000–P1,000,000 depending on the severity of injury (simple sprain vs. fractured hip requiring surgery).

XII. Preventive Measures That Defeat Liability (Best Practices Recognized by Philippine Courts)

Place bright yellow “Caution: Wet Floor” cones immediately upon mopping or noticing spill.
Use floor mats at entrances during rainy days.
Assign a staff member to stand near the wet area and verbally warn customers.
Install non-slip flooring in high-risk areas.
Maintain an incident log and take photos of warning signs placed — these are decisive evidence in court.

When these measures are proven (CCTV footage, photos, testimony of guards/janitors), the case is almost always dismissed.

Conclusion

Under Philippine law, the rule is clear and categorical: a commercial establishment that allows its floor to become slippery — whether from its own cleaning activities, rainwater, or spilled merchandise — and fails to place conspicuous warning signs commits actionable negligence. The duty to warn is simple, inexpensive, and non-delegable. Failure to do so almost invariably results in solidary liability for all damages proximately caused.

The jurisprudence is plaintiff-friendly precisely because the Supreme Court recognizes the inherent inequality of position between a business establishment (with full control of its premises) and an ordinary customer who is entitled to assume that the premises are safe for their intended use.