29.Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

L-47851, October 3, 1986

Facts: The plaintiff, Philippine Bar Association, a civic-non- profit association, decided
to construct an office building at the corner of Aduana and Arzobispo Streets,
Intramuros, Manila. The construction was undertaken by the United Construction, Inc. on
an administration basis, on the suggestion of Juan J. Carlos, the president and general
manager of said corporation. The proposal was approved by plaintiffs board of directors and
signed by its president Roman Ozaeta, a third-party defendant in this case. The PLANS and
SPECIFICATIONS for the building were prepared by the other third-party
defendants Juan F. Nakpil & Sons. The building was completed in June, 1966.
2 years later an unusually strong earthquake hit Manila and the building in
question sustained major damage. The front columns of the building buckled, causing
the building to tilt forward dangerously. The tenants vacated the building in view of its
precarious condition. As a temporary remedial measure, the building was shored up by
United Construction, Inc.
The plaintiff commenced this action for the recovery of damages arising from the partial
collapse of the building against United Construction, Inc. and its President and
General Manager Juan J. Carlos as defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the collapse of
the building was accused by defects in the construction, the failure of the
contractors to follow plans and specifications and violations by the defendants of
the terms of the contract.
Defendants in turn filed a third-party complaint against the architects who prepared
the plans and specifications, alleging in essence that the collapse of the building was
due to the defects in the said plans and specifications. Roman Ozaeta, the then
president of the plaintiff Bar Association was included as a third-party defendant for
damages for having included Juan J. Carlos, President of the United Construction Co., Inc. as
party defendant.
The issues of this case were divided into technical issues and non-technical issues. The
technical issues were referred to the Commissioner. The non-technical issues were tried by
the Court.
Plaintiff moved twice for the demolition of the building on the ground that it may
topple down in case of a strong earthquake. The motions were opposed by the
defendants and the matter was referred to the Commissioner.
The building was authorized to be demolished at the expense of the plaintiff, but another
earthquake of high intensity on April 7, 1970 followed by other strong
earthquakes on April 9, and 12, 1970, caused further damage to the property. The
actual demolition was undertaken by the buyer of the damaged building.
After the protracted hearings, COMMISSIONER HIZON (a lawyer and structural engineer)
eventually submitted his report with the findings that while the damage sustained by the
PBA building was caused directly by the August 2, 1968 earthquake whose
magnitude was estimated at 7.3 they were also caused by the defects in the plans
and specifications prepared by the third-party defendants architects, deviations
from said plans and specifications by the defendant contractors and failure of the
latter to observe the requisite workmanship in the construction of the building and of the
contractors, architects and even the owners to exercise the requisite degree of supervision
in the construction of subject building.
The trial court agreed with the findings of the Commissioner except as to the
holding that the owner is charged with full time supervision of the construction.
The lower court rendered the assailed decision which was modified by the IAC.
The United Architects of the Philippines, the Association of Civil Engineers, and the
Philippine Institute of Architects filed with the Court a motion to intervene as amicus
curiae. The amicus curiae gave the opinion that the plans and specifications of the
Nakpils were not defective. But the Commissioner, when asked by Us to comment,
reiterated his conclusion that the defects in the plans and specifications indeed existed.
Using the same authorities availed of by the amicus curiae such as the Manila Code and
the 1966 Asep Code, the Commissioner added that even if it can be proved that the
defects in the construction alone (and not in the plans and design) caused the
damage to the building, still the deficiency in the original design and lack of specific
provisions against torsion in the original plans and the overload on the ground
floor columns (found by all the experts including the original designer) certainly
contributed to the damage which occurred.

Issue: Whether an act of god strong earthquake which caused the failure of the
building, exempts from liability, parties who are otherwise liable because of their negligence.

Held: NO. LIABLE. The applicable law governing the rights and liabilities of the parties herein
is Article 1723 of the New Civil Code, which provides:
Art. 1723. The ENGINEER or ARCHITECT who drew up the plans and specifications for
a building is liable for damages if within fifteen years from the completion of the structure
the same should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications, or
due to the defects in the ground. The CONTRACTOR is likewise responsible for the
damage if the edifice falls within the same period on account of defects in the
construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by him, or due to
any violation of the terms of the contract. If the engineer or architect supervises the
construction, he shall be solidarity liable with the contractor.
Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver of any of the causes of
action by reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building.
On the other hand, the general rule is that no person shall be responsible for events
which could not be foreseen or which, though foreseen, were inevitable (Article
1174, New Civil Code).
An ACT OF GOD has been defined as an accident, due directly and exclusively to natural
causes without human intervention, which by no amount of foresight, pains or care,
reasonably to have been expected, could have been prevented.
The earthquake of August 2, 1968 is a fortuitous event or an act of God.
To exempt the obligor from liability under Article 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
either unforseeable 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 the 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 for in Article 1170 of the Civil Code, which results in loss
or damage, the obligor cannot escape liability.
The principle embodied in the act of God doctrine strictly requires that the act must be
one occasioned exclusively by the violence of nature and all human agencies are
to be excluded from creating or entering into the cause of the mischief. When the
effect, the cause of which is to be considered, is found to be in part the result of the
participation of man, whether it be from active intervention or neglect, or failure to act, the
whole occurrence is thereby humanized, as it were, and removed from the rules applicable
to the acts of God.
When the negligence of a person concurs with an act of God in producing a loss,
such person is not exempt from liability by showing that the immediate cause of
the damage was the act of God. To be exempt from liability for loss because of an act of
God, he must be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by which that loss
or damage may have been occasioned.
The negligence of the defendant and the third-party defendants petitioners was
established beyond dispute. UNITED CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. was found to have
made substantial deviations from the plans and specifications, and to have failed
to observe the requisite workmanship in the construction as well as to exercise
the requisite degree of supervision; while the third-party defendants were found to have
inadequacies or defects in the plans and specifications prepared by them.

The DEFECTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION and in the PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS were
the proximate causes that rendered the PBA building unable to withstand the
earthquake of August 2, 1968. For this reason the defendant and third-party defendants
cannot claim exemption from liability.
In any event, the relevant and logical observations of the trial court as affirmed by the Court
of Appeals that while it is not possible to state with certainty that the building would not
have collapsed were those defects not present, the fact remains that several buildings
in the same area withstood the earthquake to which the building of the plaintiff
was similarly subjected, cannot be ignored.