Nakpil - Sons - v. - Court - of - Appeals - Digest

Juan F. Nakpil & Sons, and Juan F. Nakpil vs. The Court of Appeals, United Construction Company Inc.
,
Juan J. Carlos, and the Philippine Bar Association // The United Construction Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
et. al. // Philippine Bar Association, et. al. vs. The Court of Appeals, et. al.
GR Nos. L-47851; L-47853; L-47896 || October 3, 1986 || Ponente: Paras, J.
Facts:
The Philippine Bar Association (PBA) decided to construct an office building on its lot located at
Aduana Cor. Arzobizpo Streets, in Intramuros Manila. The construction was taken by the United
Construction, Inc. (UC Inc.), on “administration” basis, on the suggestion of Juan J. Carlos (Carlos), the
President and General Manager (GM) of said corporation. Such was approved by PBA’s Board of Directors,
represented by Roman Ozaeta (deemed a third-party in this case.)
On August 2, 1968, an unusually strong earthquake hit Manila and its environs, which caused the
building in question to be heavily damaged (it leaned forward due to the buckling of its front columns.) UC
Inc., as a temporary measure, shored up the building at its own expense. On November 29, 1968, PBA filed
for recovery of damages arising from the partial collapse of their building against UC Inc., and Carlos in his
capacity as President and GM, on the basis that defects in the construction paired with failure of contractors
to follow plans and specifications caused the collapse of the building; thus, UC Inc. violating it’s contract.
UC Inc. and Carlos, on the other hand, filed a third-party complaint against the architects, Juan F. Nakpil &
Sons (JFN&Sons) who prepared the plans and specifications on the ground that the latter’s plans and
specifications were defective. Ozaeta, PBA’s president at the time of UC Inc.’s filing of third-party
complaint, was included as third-party defendant along with Carlos as party defendant.
During pre-trial on March 7, 1969, Andres Hizon (Hizon), Commissioner appointed by the trial
court, was to determine whether, a) the cause of the damage was: i. that of Fortuitous Event, ii. on the part of
UC Inc., iii. on the part of JFN&Sons, iv. on the part of Ozaeta as owner to supervise the construction, v. all
of the above, or vi. none of the above; and b) whether the building is deemed a total loss or still repairable.
PBA motioned to have the building demolished for safety concerns due to damages sustained after a
subsequent earthquake. Attempts to oppose were made by UC Inc., but the Commissioner eventually
authorized such deconstruction, on the expense of the buyer of the building (not named.) The Commissioner,
on September 25, 1970, submitted his report to the trial court, finding the damage of the building on the fault
of (v.) all of the above.
The trial court agreed with the Commissioner except as to the liability of the owner as there was no
legal or contractual basis for him to supervise such. The Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) affirmed the
decision with modifications, hence this instant case in the Supreme Court.
United Architects of the Philippines, the Association of Civil Engineers, and the Philippine Institute
of Architects filed with the SC a motion to intervene as amicus curiae, in order to aid in identifying the source
of liability for the collapse of the building. Such was granted by the SC. In its submitted findings, the three
agreed that JFN&Sons was not liable for the collapse, while UC Inc. along with the circumstance of the
earthquake were.
Issue(s):
i. WoN an act of good (fortuitous event), - such as an unusually strong earthquake – which caused the
failure of the building, exempts from liability parties who are otherwise liable because of their
negligence.
a. Art. 1723 NCC:
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 solidarily 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.
b. Art. 1174 of the NCC provides that as a general rule, no person shall be responsible for events
which could not be foreseen or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.
Ruling:
SC:
The Supreme Court affirms (with modifications as to the amount for damages) the finding of the
lower courts on the ground that when 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, except when such person is exempted as provided below.
i. With regards to the nature of the earthquake:

a. An Act of God is 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.
b. Thus, the earthquake was an act of god (a fortuitous event.)
ii. With regards to liability arising from Fortuitous Events:
a. Exemption from liability under Art. 1174 of NCC, as provided for in jurisprudence, requires
the following:
i. The cause of the breach of an obligation must be independent of the will of the obligor;
ii. The event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable;
iii. The event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation
in a normal manner; and
iv. The debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury.
iii. With regards to the award of damages:
a. It has been established that the building partially collapsed and was repairable, but due to the
lack of financing on the part of PBA, it was delayed and eventually demolished on the authority
of the Commissioner in pre-trial.
b. It was established that UC Inc. and JFN&Sons are liable for damages as contractor, and
architects and engineers accordingly.
i. The Commissioner and UC Inc. and JFN&Sons went back-and-forth in justifying
whether the latter parties were liable or not.
ii. Since it was alleged that the Commissioner did not detail the specific causes linked to
the UC Inc. and JFN&Sons, the SC echoed the painstaking discussion made by the
IAC Justice who heard the aforementioned cases on the appellate level, and re-
enumerated the liability of the parties.
Doctrine:
General Rule:
When 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.
Exception to the Rule:
Exemption from liability under Art. 1174 of NCC, as provided for in jurisprudence,
requires the following:
iii. The cause of the breach of an obligation must be independent of the will of the obligor;
iv. The event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable;
v. The event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation
in a normal manner; and
vi. The debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury
Additional Notes:
None

Nakpil - Sons - v. - Court - of - Appeals - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nakpil - Sons - v. - Court - of - Appeals - Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nakpil - Sons - v. - Court - of - Appeals - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Juan F. Nakpil & Sons, and Juan F. Nakpil vs. The Court of Appeals, United Construction Company Inc.

i. With regards to the nature of the earthquake:

You might also like