Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. CA et. al.
Facts:
The construction of the Philippine Bar Association’s (PBA) office building on its 840 square
meters lot located at Intramuros, Manila was undertaken by United Construction
Incorporation (UCI). The plans and specifications for the building were prepared by a third
party, Juan F. Nakpil & Sons. The building was completed in June, 1966 . Unfortunately, a strong
earthquake hit Manila in August of 1968 and the building in question sustained major damage.
The front columns of the building buckled, causing the building to tilt forward dangerously.
Tenants vacated the building and the building was shored up by United Construction, Inc. as a
temporary remedial measure. PBA instituted a case against the construction company for
damages due to its negligence regarding the construction of the said building thru its failure to
follow the designs coming from Juan F. Nakpil & Sons. UCI then filed a complaint against the
architects alleging that it was the designs that were flawed and caused the building’s damage.
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons thereafter alleged that it was UCI who deviated from the plans which
caused the damage to the building. Technical issues of the case were referred to a
Commissioner who submitted a report finding that there were defects in the plans and
specifications prepared by the architects, and that there were deviations from said plans and
specifications together with the failure of UCI to observe the requisite workmanship in the
construction of the building caused the damage.
Issue:
Whether or not an act of God, an unusually strong earthquake, which caused the failure of
the building, exempts from liability, parties who are otherwise liable because of their
negligence.
RULING:
No. They are not exempt from criminal liability. To exempt the obligor from liability under
Art. 1174 of the Civil Code, for a breach of an obligation due to an “act of God,” the
following must concur:
(a) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor;
(b) the event must be unforeseeable or unavoidable;
(c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in
a normal manner, and
(d) the debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury to the
creditor.
Thus, if upon happening of a fortuitous event or an act of God, there concurs a corresponding
fraud, negligence, delay or violation or contravention in any manner of the tenor of the
obligation as provided in Art. 1170, which results in loss or damage, the obligor cannot
escape liability. To be exempted, he must be free from any previous negligence or misconduct
by which that loss or damage may have been occasioned.
The report of the commissioner established that the defects that occurred to the
building could be attributed to the act of man specifically that of the architect and the
contractor. This was because of the fact that UCI deviated from the plans submitted by the
architects and their failure to observe the required workmanship in constructing the
building as well as the lack of supervision. Nakpil & Sons are also liable for the inadequacies
and defect in the architectural plan and specifications. These circumstances were the
proximate causes of the damages the building incurred. As such, the liability of the contractor
and the architect in the collapse of the building is solidary. Costs are to be paid by the
defendants amounting to 5 million plus 100,000 for attorney’s fee.