Electrical damage in a leased property raises two tightly connected legal questions in the Philippines. The first is civil liability: who pays when wiring, outlets, breakers, appliances, panels, meters, or other electrical components are damaged during the lease? The second is possession and eviction: when may a landlord remove a tenant because of that damage, unsafe use of electricity, or nonpayment of repair costs?

These issues are governed not by a single rule, but by a combination of the Civil Code on leases, damages, obligations, negligence, property preservation, and rescission, together with special rent-control rules where applicable, local safety requirements, and ordinary court procedure on ejectment. The result is a practical legal framework: a tenant is not automatically liable for every electrical problem in a rented premises, but a tenant may be liable where the damage was caused by misuse, negligence, unauthorized alteration, overloading, tampering, or failure to report a dangerous condition. Even then, eviction is not automatic. In the Philippines, a landlord must still follow the proper legal process.

This article explains the topic comprehensively in Philippine context.

I. The core legal framework

The law treats a lease as a contract that gives the tenant use of the property for rent, while imposing obligations on both landlord and tenant. In electrical-damage disputes, the main body of law is the Civil Code of the Philippines, especially the provisions on lease, obligations, damages, and quasi-delicts.

At the broadest level, the law divides responsibility this way:

The landlord is generally responsible for delivering and maintaining the premises in a condition fit for the use intended, including major structural and system-related matters unless the lease validly places some limited duties on the tenant.

The tenant is generally responsible for using the premises with diligence, paying rent, making ordinary repairs caused by his own use when legally chargeable, avoiding damage, notifying the landlord of urgent repairs or dangerous conditions, and returning the property in the condition required by law and contract, allowing for normal wear and tear.

Electrical disputes often become difficult because they sit in the middle of those two duties. An electrical defect may come from old wiring, hidden defects, poor original installation, code violations, weather, utility fluctuation, or aging infrastructure, which usually lean toward landlord responsibility. But it may also come from tenant overload, illegal tapping, unauthorized rewiring, use of dangerous appliances, bypassing breakers, or negligent handling, which lean toward tenant liability.

II. What counts as “electrical damage”

Electrical damage in a lease can include many different kinds of harm:

burned outlets, switches, sockets, or light fixtures;
damaged circuit breakers, fuse boxes, or panel boards;
melted wiring or short circuits;
overloaded lines due to improper appliance use;
damage from air-conditioner installation, welding machines, heaters, servers, refrigerators, or commercial equipment;
tampering with the electric meter or service entrance;
fire caused by electrical malfunction;
damage to neighboring units caused by an electrical incident originating in the leased premises;
damage to the building’s common electrical system;
electrocution risk caused by exposed wires or altered installations.

Legally, the more specific the damage, the easier it is to assign responsibility. “There was an electrical problem” is too vague. The actual issue matters: was it an old concealed wire inside the wall, or a tenant-installed high-load device plugged into an unsuitable outlet?

III. The first big distinction: defect of the property vs. damage caused by the tenant

This is the most important distinction in the entire subject.

1. Defect of the property or normal deterioration

If the electrical damage is due to age, hidden defect, poor construction, defective original wiring, ordinary wear and tear, deterioration not caused by the tenant, or the landlord’s failure to maintain the premises, liability usually falls on the landlord.

Examples:

old wiring overheats despite ordinary residential use;
the breaker panel was undersized from the beginning;
internal wall wiring had latent defects;
roof leaks caused wiring damage because the structure was poorly maintained;
the electrical system was unsafe before move-in.

In these cases, the tenant is usually not liable merely because the malfunction happened during occupancy.

2. Damage caused by the tenant’s act, fault, or negligence

If the damage was caused by the tenant’s misuse, negligence, unauthorized alteration, overloading, reckless appliance use, improper extension wiring, tampering, or prohibited modifications, liability may fall on the tenant.

Examples:

using multiple high-consumption devices on a line not designed for them after being warned not to;
making unauthorized rewiring or adding illegal outlets;
bypassing safety devices;
connecting commercial equipment in a residential unit without approval;
tampering with the meter;
ignoring visible sparking, burning smell, or exposed wires and continuing dangerous use.

The law generally does not protect a tenant from the consequences of damage he personally caused or allowed through negligence.

IV. Contract matters, but contract is not everything

The lease contract is always the starting point. It may contain clauses on:

who handles repairs;
whether tenant improvements need written approval;
who bears utility and maintenance costs;
whether the premises are for residential or commercial use only;
what constitutes prohibited alteration;
whether the tenant must return the premises in original condition;
whether the security deposit may answer for damage;
default and termination clauses.

These clauses matter greatly. But the landlord cannot simply use a lease clause to escape all legal duties, especially for major defects, hidden dangers, or conditions that make the premises unfit for use. A clause saying the tenant accepts the premises “as is” does not necessarily erase responsibility for serious concealed defects or conditions the landlord should legally address.

On the other hand, a tenant cannot ignore a clause prohibiting electrical alterations or high-load commercial use and then deny responsibility when damage follows.

V. The landlord’s basic duties regarding electrical safety

A landlord’s legal duties typically include the duty to deliver and maintain the leased premises in a reasonably usable condition for the purpose intended. In electrical matters, that often means:

the installed electrical system must be basically suitable for the leased use;
latent or pre-existing defects should not be concealed;
necessary major repairs should be made when due;
the landlord should not leave dangerous electrical conditions unaddressed after notice;
common-area systems, main lines, and building-level infrastructure are generally landlord concerns.

If a landlord leases out a unit with unsafe, deteriorated, substandard, or hidden electrical defects, the landlord may be liable for resulting damage to the tenant’s use, and in serious cases, for broader losses caused by that failure.

This also matters for eviction. A landlord who is himself in breach for failure to provide a habitable or reasonably usable premises is in a weaker position when trying to evict a tenant based on disputes tied to the same uncorrected condition.

VI. The tenant’s basic duties regarding electrical use

A tenant is expected to act as a careful possessor of another person’s property. In electrical matters, that usually includes:

using the premises only for the agreed purpose;
using electrical loads in a normal and prudent way;
not making unauthorized installations or alterations;
not damaging the meter, breakers, or wiring;
informing the landlord of urgent repairs or dangerous defects;
not continuing obviously hazardous use;
complying with building rules, safety rules, and lawful lease restrictions.

A tenant who notices repeated tripping, sparks, overheating, or exposed wires and simply ignores them may face liability if damage becomes worse and could reasonably have been prevented by timely notice or prudent conduct.

VII. Normal wear and tear vs. actual damage

A tenant is not an insurer of the property. The law generally recognizes the idea behind normal wear and tear even if lease disputes often use that phrase loosely.

Normal wear and tear in electrical context may include:

old fixtures reaching end of life through ordinary use;
faded switches or worn plates;
minor deterioration due to age;
declining performance of an old electrical system not caused by tenant misuse.

Actual damage beyond ordinary use may include:

burned receptacles from improper loads;
broken cover plates or fixtures due to physical mishandling;
unauthorized added wiring;
overloaded extension hubs causing heat damage;
removal of installed components;
damage caused by prohibited equipment.

The line between these two is factual and often requires inspection.

VIII. Unauthorized electrical alterations

One of the clearest grounds for tenant liability is unauthorized electrical modification.

This includes:

adding outlets without approval;
changing wiring paths;
installing sub-meters without permission;
bypassing grounding or breakers;
altering panels or distribution boards;
drilling or cutting into electrical runs;
using unlicensed workers for electrical changes where that causes damage.

Even if the tenant thought the change was helpful, unauthorized alteration can create liability if it violates the lease, compromises safety, or causes damage. In many leases, unauthorized structural or systems modifications are also a ground for termination.

IX. Overloading and improper use

Electrical systems are designed for certain loads. Liability often turns on whether the tenant used the premises consistently with the intended use and electrical capacity.

In residential rentals, common risk situations include:

plugging multiple air conditioners, heaters, ovens, and refrigerators into unsuitable lines;
using industrial appliances in a residential unit;
relying on cheap extension cords for major appliances;
operating a business with high electrical consumption in a residential space.

In commercial leases, the issue becomes even more important. A tenant who introduces machinery, servers, welding tools, freezers, ovens, or production equipment without checking load capacity may be responsible for resulting damage, especially if landlord consent was required.

X. Fire caused by electrical damage

When electrical damage leads to fire, legal exposure expands dramatically. The tenant may face liability not only for damage to the leased premises, but also for:

damage to the building;
damage to neighboring units;
damage to the landlord’s property kept in the premises;
consequential losses, depending on proof and contract;
possible claims from third parties under negligence principles.

But again, liability depends on cause. If the fire began because of a hidden wiring defect or defective building infrastructure, that may point back to the landlord or another responsible party. If it arose from tenant negligence, unauthorized rewiring, overloading, or dangerous appliance use, the tenant may be liable.

Because fire claims are serious, documentary and technical evidence become crucial.

XI. Proof: who has to show what

In practice, the party making the claim must prove it. A landlord demanding payment for electrical damage must show more than the mere fact that damage exists. The landlord should be able to show:

the nature and extent of the damage;
that the damage occurred during the tenant’s occupancy;
that it was caused by the tenant’s act, fault, negligence, or lease violation;
the cost of repair;
the factual basis for withholding deposit or demanding reimbursement.

The tenant, on the other hand, strengthens his position by showing:

the condition of the premises at move-in;
pre-existing electrical issues;
prior complaints to the landlord;
absence of unauthorized alterations;
ordinary and foreseeable use;
inspection reports or electrician findings showing latent defect or age-related failure.

The burden often shifts in practical terms once good evidence appears. A landlord cannot simply assume that because the tenant occupied the unit, the tenant caused the electrical fault.

XII. Useful evidence in electrical-damage disputes

These cases are won or lost on evidence.

Important evidence includes:

the written lease contract;
move-in inspection checklist;
turnover photos and videos;
messages or emails about prior electrical issues;
repair requests and landlord responses;
electrician inspection reports;
fire investigation findings, where relevant;
receipts and quotations for repairs;
photos of burned outlets, breakers, wires, or panels;
building admin incident reports;
utility records;
witness statements from neighbors, caretakers, or maintenance staff;
proof of unauthorized installations or lack of consent.

Technical reports matter because electrical causation is often not obvious from appearance alone.

XIII. Can the landlord immediately make the tenant pay?

A landlord may demand reimbursement, but immediate self-awarded liability is risky. The landlord should first determine the cause and cost, and ideally notify the tenant in writing of:

the specific damage found;
the alleged cause;
the contract or legal basis for charging the tenant;
the repair estimate or invoice;
the amount sought;
the deadline to respond.

If the tenant disputes responsibility, the issue may need negotiation, offset against the deposit where justified, or legal action. A landlord is in a stronger position with inspection evidence than with accusations alone.

XIV. Security deposit and electrical damage

A security deposit is often the first practical source of recovery. In Philippine leases, landlords commonly use the deposit to answer for unpaid rent, utility bills, or property damage beyond normal wear and tear.

Where electrical damage is clearly attributable to the tenant, the landlord may have a strong basis to apply the security deposit toward repairs, subject to the lease terms and proper accounting.

But a deposit is not a blank check. A landlord should not automatically forfeit the deposit for unexplained “electrical damage” without itemization or proof. The tenant can question deductions that are:

unsupported by evidence;
actually due to old defects or normal deterioration;
excessive relative to the real cost;
unrelated to the tenant’s acts.

A proper turnover accounting is very important.

XV. Can the landlord disconnect the electricity to force payment or move-out?

As a rule of law and due process, a landlord should be very careful. Unilateral utility disconnection to force a tenant out can expose the landlord to legal trouble, especially where it is effectively used as self-help eviction.

The key point is that a landlord generally cannot bypass legal eviction procedure by making the premises unlivable, cutting essential utilities, changing locks, removing doors, or intimidating the tenant into leaving. Even when the tenant may be in default, the landlord is expected to use lawful means.

There may be narrow exceptions tied to actual safety emergencies, such as isolating a dangerous line to prevent fire or electrocution. But “safety” cannot be used as a cover for informal eviction. If the issue is nonpayment or damage liability, the proper remedy is demand, repair, and, if needed, court action.

XVI. Eviction is not automatic

Even if the tenant caused electrical damage, the landlord cannot simply throw the tenant out on the spot. In the Philippines, removal of a tenant usually requires proper legal grounds and proper process.

Electrical damage may become a ground for eviction in several ways:

it may amount to a substantial violation of lease terms;
it may constitute misuse or unauthorized use of the premises;
it may amount to damage caused by the tenant;
the tenant may refuse to pay rent or lawful repair charges;
the tenant may engage in unsafe acts that threaten the property or others.

But the landlord still needs to follow the required steps for ejectment. Self-help eviction is legally dangerous.

XVII. Main eviction pathways in the Philippines

In lease disputes, the usual court route is ejectment, commonly in the form of unlawful detainer or, in some situations, forcible entry. For electrical-damage cases involving an existing tenant, the relevant action is usually unlawful detainer, because the tenant originally had lawful possession but allegedly lost the right to remain due to breach, expiration, or refusal to comply after demand.

Typical grounds related to this topic include:

violation of lease conditions;
nonpayment of rent;
expiration or termination of the lease;
unlawful withholding of possession after valid demand;
commission of acts causing serious damage to the premises.

The landlord ordinarily needs a clear basis for termination and a proper demand to vacate before filing the case.

XVIII. Demand is crucial

Before filing an eviction case, the landlord generally needs to make a clear written demand. Depending on the facts, the demand may include:

a demand to stop the unauthorized act;
a demand to pay for damage or comply with the lease;
a demand to vacate because of breach;
a demand to surrender possession by a specific date.

The demand letter is important because it defines the breach and often starts the period leading to unlawful detainer. A defective, vague, or inconsistent demand can weaken the eviction case.

In electrical-damage cases, a strong demand letter should specify:

what damage occurred;
how the tenant allegedly caused it;
what lease provision was violated;
what amount is due, if any;
whether the lease is being terminated because of the breach;
when the tenant must leave if the breach is not cured or if termination is final.

XIX. Is prior notice and opportunity to cure required?

That depends on the lease and the nature of the breach.

Some leases expressly provide that certain violations, including unauthorized alterations or dangerous use of utilities, are grounds for immediate termination. Others require notice and a cure period. Even without a cure clause, fairness and litigation prudence often favor giving specific notice first, unless the situation is so dangerous or serious that termination is justified outright.

Where the tenant’s act created a serious fire hazard or caused major electrical damage, the landlord may argue that the breach is substantial enough to justify termination without extended accommodation. But even then, actual removal still generally requires legal process.

XX. Rent-control considerations

For residential units that fall within Philippine rent-control laws, landlords must be especially careful. Special statutory protections may affect the grounds and process for ejectment. In such settings, eviction is not simply a matter of private contract. A landlord must ensure that the reason for ejectment fits lawful grounds and that notice requirements are observed.

Where the tenant caused serious damage to the premises, that may still support eviction even in rent-controlled contexts, but the landlord should proceed with precision and documentation.

XXI. Residential vs. commercial leases

The analysis changes depending on the nature of the lease.

Residential lease

Courts and officials tend to view residential occupancy with greater sensitivity because it involves shelter. A landlord should not use informal means to remove the tenant. Electrical misuse by a residential tenant can still justify liability and eviction, but proof must be solid.

Commercial lease

Commercial tenants are often held to stricter standards regarding electrical load, equipment, and alterations, especially where the lease specifies approved uses and technical requirements. A commercial tenant who overloads the system or installs equipment without consent is more exposed to liability for resulting damage and business-interruption consequences.

XXII. Shared systems and apartment buildings

In multi-unit buildings, electrical damage may affect common systems or neighboring tenants. This creates extra layers of liability.

Possible responsible parties may include:

the landlord, for defective common infrastructure;
the tenant, for damage originating in the unit due to misuse or alteration;
the building administration, if common systems were negligently maintained;
a contractor or electrician, if faulty work caused the incident.

A landlord should not automatically blame one tenant merely because the incident surfaced in that tenant’s unit. Technical tracing matters.

XXIII. Duty to report dangerous conditions

A tenant who notices serious electrical defects should inform the landlord or building management promptly. Silence can become legally significant.

Examples where failure to report may hurt the tenant:

repeated sparking at an outlet;
frequent breaker tripping indicating overload or defect;
burning smell from the panel;
water intrusion near wiring;
exposed wires after furniture installation or renovation.

A tenant who continues using the system recklessly without notice may share or bear liability for the resulting harm.

XXIV. Repair by tenant without landlord consent

Sometimes a tenant hires an electrician on his own because the landlord is unresponsive. This is legally delicate.

Where the repair was urgent and necessary to prevent greater damage or danger, the tenant may argue justification, especially if the landlord had notice and failed to act. But unauthorized repairs can also create disputes if:

the tenant chose an unqualified worker;
the repair altered the system;
the repair worsened the damage;
the tenant seeks reimbursement without sufficient proof.

Emergency action is more defensible than discretionary modification.

XXV. When the tenant may refuse to shoulder repair costs

A tenant may dispute liability where:

the damage arose from hidden defect, age, or poor original installation;
the landlord failed to maintain the premises properly;
the electrical system was inadequate for the agreed use from the start;
the landlord approved the setup that later failed;
the claimed repair cost is inflated;
the damage predates the lease;
the landlord cannot prove causation.

The tenant’s position becomes stronger when supported by timely complaints and technical findings.

XXVI. When the landlord may terminate the lease because of electrical issues

A landlord may have a strong basis to terminate the lease where the tenant:

made unauthorized electrical alterations;
used the premises for a purpose inconsistent with the lease, causing overload or damage;
created a serious safety hazard;
caused substantial damage to the property;
refused to stop dangerous conduct after notice;
refused to pay rent and lawful charges connected to the damage;
committed acts that materially breach the lease.

But termination of the lease and actual eviction are not the same thing. Termination may end the contractual right to stay, but possession is still ordinarily recovered through proper legal procedure if the tenant refuses to leave.

XXVII. Immediate safety action vs. illegal self-help

A useful legal distinction must be made between:

Lawful emergency safety measures

shutting off a dangerous breaker to prevent fire;
calling emergency services;
isolating exposed live wires;
preventing access to a hazardous area.

Unlawful self-help eviction behavior

permanently cutting electricity to force move-out;
changing locks without court process;
physically removing tenant belongings;
threats, harassment, or intimidation;
blocking access to the premises.

Even a landlord with a valid grievance can get into legal trouble by choosing the wrong remedy.

XXVIII. Police involvement

Electrical damage and eviction disputes are usually civil matters, not automatic criminal cases. Police may intervene to keep peace or respond to fire or safety emergencies, but police presence does not replace court process for eviction.

Criminal issues may arise only in specific circumstances, such as:

malicious destruction of property;
meter tampering or power theft;
arson-related facts;
threats or violence in the dispute.

Ordinary breach of lease or disagreement over who caused electrical damage remains mainly civil.

XXIX. Barangay conciliation

Many landlord-tenant disputes in the Philippines may pass through barangay conciliation before court, depending on the parties, location, and nature of the dispute. This can matter in claims for repair costs, lease breach, reimbursement, or possession issues. It often becomes the first formal venue where the parties present their versions.

For electrical-damage disputes, barangay proceedings can be useful for:

fixing the issues in writing;
narrowing the factual disagreement;
recording demands and responses;
attempting settlement on repairs, deposit, move-out, or payment terms.

Still, serious possession cases and court deadlines must be handled carefully.

XXX. Court action for damages

A landlord who suffers electrical damage caused by the tenant may bring a civil claim for damages, or assert the damage claim together with lease-related remedies, depending on procedure and strategy. Recoverable amounts may potentially include:

cost of actual repairs;
replacement of damaged components;
other property damage directly caused;
unpaid utility or restoration costs;
in proper cases, consequential losses if legally provable and not too remote.

A tenant can also sue or defend based on the landlord’s failure to maintain a safe electrical system, especially where the landlord’s neglect caused damage to the tenant’s property or use of the premises.

XXXI. Measure of damages

Not every defect justifies charging the cost of a full upgrade. The proper measure is usually linked to the actual damage and necessary repair.

A landlord may have difficulty justifying charging the tenant for a complete rewiring of an old unit if only a small portion was damaged by tenant misuse and the rest of the system was already obsolete. The law tends to compensate actual loss, not give a windfall through forced improvements unrelated to the tenant’s fault.

Similarly, the tenant cannot insist that every repair is a landlord obligation if the tenant clearly caused the incident.

XXXII. Experts and inspections

Because electrical disputes are technical, neutral or professional inspections can be decisive. An electrician’s report can help answer:

whether the damage came from overload or latent defect;
whether the installation met expected standards;
whether unauthorized rewiring occurred;
whether the damage was recent or long-developing;
what repairs are truly necessary.

In serious disputes, expert evidence is often more persuasive than bare accusations.

XXXIII. Move-out and turnover disputes

Electrical issues often surface at the end of the lease. At turnover, the landlord may claim:

broken fixtures;
burned outlets;
missing light fittings;
damaged breakers;
disconnected wires;
exposed modifications.

The tenant should insist on a joint inspection, written turnover findings, and photos. Without this, both sides later exaggerate: the landlord says the unit was damaged, the tenant says everything was already old.

The best practice is comparison between move-in and move-out condition.

XXXIV. Can nonpayment of repair cost be a basis for eviction?

Potentially yes, depending on the lease and the nature of the obligation. If the tenant is clearly liable for electrical damage, the landlord properly demands payment, the lease treats such damage as tenant responsibility, and the tenant refuses to comply, that refusal may support termination and later unlawful detainer.

But the landlord should distinguish between:

a clear liquidated obligation supported by proof; and
a disputed damage claim not yet established.

Eviction is stronger when the breach is specific and documented, not when the alleged liability remains speculative.

XXXV. Habitability and constructive eviction concerns

Where the electrical system is dangerously defective because of the landlord’s neglect, the tenant may argue that the landlord failed to maintain the premises in a fit condition. In extreme situations, the tenant may claim that the premises became effectively uninhabitable or unusable.

This does not create a simple automatic formula, but it matters greatly. A landlord cannot allow unsafe electrical conditions to persist and then treat the tenant as the sole wrongdoer for the consequences of those same defects.

XXXVI. Insurance issues

Insurance can complicate but not erase liability. The building may have insurance, the tenant may have business or renter’s insurance, and the insurer may later seek recovery from the party at fault. Insurance payment does not automatically settle who was legally responsible; it may only shift who ultimately pursues the claim.

Lease clauses on insurance, waiver, and indemnity should be checked carefully.

XXXVII. Common real-world scenarios

Scenario 1: Old wiring burns behind the wall during ordinary residential use

Likely outcome: landlord responsibility is strong, unless tenant misuse is proven.

Scenario 2: Tenant installs extra outlets without permission and a short circuit damages the panel

Likely outcome: tenant liability is strong, and lease termination may be supportable.

Scenario 3: Tenant runs heavy commercial equipment in a residential unit, causing repeated trips and eventual damage

Likely outcome: tenant liability is strong; this may also justify termination for unauthorized use.

Scenario 4: Landlord ignores repeated complaints about sparks from the breaker panel, then a fire occurs

Likely outcome: landlord exposure is serious; attempting to evict the tenant over resulting damage would be weak unless tenant fault is separately shown.

Scenario 5: Tenant refuses electrician access for urgent repair, damage worsens

Likely outcome: tenant may bear responsibility for aggravation of the damage and may weaken any defense.

XXXVIII. Best practices for landlords

Landlords should:

document the electrical condition before move-in;
use clear lease clauses on alterations and load restrictions;
respond promptly to safety complaints;
require written approval for electrical changes;
inspect lawfully and properly when issues arise;
send clear written demands before termination;
avoid self-help eviction;
keep repair invoices and technical findings.

A landlord with poor documentation often loses even when genuinely aggrieved.

XXXIX. Best practices for tenants

Tenants should:

inspect the electrical system at move-in and document visible issues;
report defects immediately in writing;
never rewire or alter electrical systems without written consent;
avoid overloading circuits;
use the premises only as agreed;
keep proof of landlord notice and responses;
request joint inspection at turnover;
challenge unsupported deposit deductions in writing.

A tenant who documents pre-existing issues is much better protected.

XL. The most important legal bottom lines

Under Philippine law, tenant liability for electrical damage depends on cause, fault, notice, contract terms, and proof. A tenant is generally liable when the damage arose from his negligence, misuse, unauthorized alteration, dangerous overloading, or other breach of the lease. A landlord is generally liable for major electrical defects, latent defects, ordinary deterioration, and failure to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe and usable condition.

On eviction, the rule is just as important: even where the tenant may be liable, eviction must still follow proper legal process. A landlord ordinarily cannot force a tenant out by cutting electricity, changing locks, threatening removal, or using other self-help measures. The lawful path is demand, termination where justified, and ejectment through the proper procedure if the tenant refuses to vacate.

So the real legal questions in these disputes are not merely “Was there electrical damage?” but these:

What exactly was damaged? What caused it? Who had the duty to prevent or repair it? What does the lease say? What can be proven? Was the eviction process lawful?

Those questions determine liability, deposit deductions, damages, termination, and possession. In Philippine practice, the side with the better documents, clearer chronology, and stronger technical proof usually has the stronger case.