G.R. No.

L-47851 October 3, 1986 WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from

is modified to include an award of
JUAN F. NAKPIL & SONS, and JUAN F. NAKPIL, petitioners,  P200,000.00 in favor of plaintiff-appellant
vs. Philippine Bar Association, with interest at
THE COURT OF APPEALS, UNITED CONSTRUCTION the legal rate from November 29, 1968 until
COMPANY, INC., JUAN J. CARLOS, and the PHILIPPINE BAR full payment to be paid jointly and severally
ASSOCIATION, respondents. by defendant United Construction Co., Inc.
and third party defendants (except Roman
Ozaeta). In all other respects, the judgment
G.R. No. L-47863 October 3, 1986 dated September 21, 1971 as modified in the
December 8, 1971 Order of the lower court
THE UNITED CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., petitioner,  is hereby affirmed with COSTS to be paid by
vs. the defendant and third party defendant
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents. (except Roman Ozaeta) in equal shares.

G.R. No. L-47896 October 3, 1986 SO ORDERED.

PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION, ET AL., petitioners,  Petitioners Juan F. Nakpil & Sons in L-47851 and United
vs. Construction Co., Inc. and Juan J. Carlos in L-47863 seek the
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents. reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals, among other
things, for exoneration from liability while petitioner
PARAS, J.: Philippine Bar Association in L-47896 seeks the modification of
aforesaid decision to obtain an award of P1,830,000.00 for the
loss of the PBA building plus four (4) times such amount as
These are petitions for review on certiorari of the November damages resulting in increased cost of the building,
28, 1977 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 51771- P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P100,000.00 as
R modifying the decision of the Court of First Instance of attorney's fees.
Manila, Branch V, in Civil Case No. 74958 dated September 21,
1971 as modified by the Order of the lower court dated
December 8, 1971. The Court of Appeals in modifying the These petitions arising from the same case filed in the Court of
decision of the lower court included an award of an additional First Instance of Manila were consolidated by this Court in the
amount of P200,000.00 to the Philippine Bar Association to be resolution of May 10, 1978 requiring the respective
paid jointly and severally by the defendant United Construction respondents to comment. (Rollo, L-47851, p. 172).
Co. and by the third-party defendants Juan F. Nakpil and Sons
and Juan F. Nakpil. The facts as found by the lower court (Decision, C.C. No. 74958;
Record on Appeal, pp. 269-348; pp. 520-521; Rollo, L-47851, p.
The dispositive portion of the modified decision of the lower 169) and affirmed by the Court of Appeals are as follows:
court reads:
The plaintiff, Philippine Bar Association, a civic-non-profit
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: association, incorporated under the Corporation Law, decided
to construct an office building on its 840 square meters lot
located at the comer of Aduana and Arzobispo Streets,
(a) Ordering defendant United Construction Intramuros, Manila. The construction was undertaken by the
Co., Inc. and third-party defendants (except United Construction, Inc. on an "administration" basis, on the
Roman Ozaeta) to pay the plaintiff, jointly suggestion of Juan J. Carlos, the president and general manager
and severally, the sum of P989,335.68 with of said corporation. The proposal was approved by plaintiff's
interest at the legal rate from November 29, board of directors and signed by its president Roman Ozaeta, a
1968, the date of the filing of the complaint third-party defendant in this case. The plans and specifications
until full payment; for the building were prepared by the other third-party
defendants Juan F. Nakpil & Sons. The building was completed
(b) Dismissing the complaint with respect to in June, 1966.
defendant Juan J. Carlos;
In the early morning of August 2, 1968 an unusually strong
(c) Dismissing the third-party complaint; earthquake hit Manila and its environs and the building in
question sustained major damage. The front columns of the
(d) Dismissing the defendant's and third- building buckled, causing the building to tilt forward
party defendants' counterclaims for lack of dangerously. The tenants vacated the building in view of its
merit; precarious condition. As a temporary remedial measure, the
building was shored up by United Construction, Inc. at the
cost of P13,661.28.
(e) Ordering defendant United Construction
Co., Inc. and third-party defendants (except
Roman Ozaeta) to pay the costs in equal PLAINTIFF PH BAR ASSOCIATION
shares.
On November 29, 1968, the plaintiff commenced this action for
SO ORDERED. (Record on Appeal p. 521; the recovery of damages arising from the partial collapse of the
Rollo, L- 47851, p. 169). 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
The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals construction, the failure of the contractors to follow plans and
reads: specifications and violations by the defendants of the terms of
the contract.
DEFENDANTS earthquake had been caused, directly or
indirectly, by:
Defendants in turn filed a third-party complaint against the
architects who prepared the plans and specifications, alleging (a) The inadequacies or defects in the plans
in essence that the collapse of the building was due to the and specifications prepared by third-party
defects in the said plans and specifications. Roman Ozaeta, the defendants;
then president of the plaintiff Bar Association was included as a
third-party defendant for damages for having included Juan J. (b) The deviations, if any, made by the
Carlos, President of the United Construction Co., Inc. as party defendants from said plans and
defendant. specifications and how said deviations
contributed to the damage sustained;
On March 3, 1969, the plaintiff and third-party defendants Juan
F. Nakpil & Sons and Juan F. Nakpil presented a written (c) The alleged failure of defendants to
stipulation which reads: observe the requisite quality of materials
and workmanship in the construction of the
1. That in relation to defendants' answer building;
with counterclaims and third- party
complaints and the third-party defendants (d) The alleged failure to exercise the
Nakpil & Sons' answer thereto, the plaintiff requisite degree of supervision expected of
need not amend its complaint by including the architect, the contractor and/or the
the said Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and Juan F. owner of the building;
Nakpil personally as parties defendant.
(e) An act of God or a fortuitous event; and
2. That in the event (unexpected by the
undersigned) that the Court should find
after the trial that the above-named (f) Any other cause not herein above
defendants Juan J. Carlos and United specified.
Construction Co., Inc. are free from any
blame and liability for the collapse of the 2. If the cause of the damage suffered by the
PBA Building, and should further find that building arose from a combination of the
the collapse of said building was due to above-enumerated factors, the degree or
defects and/or inadequacy of the plans, proportion in which each individual factor
designs, and specifications p by the third- contributed to the damage sustained;
party defendants, or in the event that the
Court may find Juan F. Nakpil and Sons 3. Whether the building is now a total loss
and/or Juan F. Nakpil contributorily and should be completely demolished or
negligent or in any way jointly and solidarily whether it may still be repaired and
liable with the defendants, judgment may be restored to a tenantable condition. In the
rendered in whole or in part. as the case latter case, the determination of the cost of
may be, against Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and/or such restoration or repair, and the value of
Juan F. Nakpil in favor of the plaintiff to all any remaining construction, such as the
intents and purposes as if plaintiff's foundation, which may still be utilized or
complaint has been duly amended by availed of (Record on Appeal, pp. 275-276;
including the said Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and Rollo, L-47851, p. 169).
Juan F. Nakpil as parties defendant and by
alleging causes of action against them
including, among others, the defects or Thus, the issues of this case were divided into technical issues
inadequacy of the plans, designs, and and non-technical issues. As aforestated the technical issues
specifications prepared by them and/or were referred to the Commissioner. The non-technical issues
failure in the performance of their contract were tried by the Court.
with plaintiff.
PLAINTIFF – moved for demolition
3. Both parties hereby jointly petition this
Honorable Court to approve this stipulation. Meanwhile, plaintiff moved twice for the demolition of the
(Record on Appeal, pp. 274-275; Rollo, L- building on the ground that it may topple down in case of a
47851,p.169). strong earthquake. The motions were opposed by the
defendants and the matter was referred to the Commissioner.
SUBMISSION TO A COMMISSIONER Finally, on April 30, 1979 the building was authorized to be
demolished at the expense of the plaintiff, but not another
earthquake of high intensity on April 7, 1970 followed by other
Upon the issues being joined, a pre-trial was conducted on strong earthquakes on April 9, and 12, 1970, caused further
March 7, 1969, during which among others, the parties agreed damage to the property. The actual demolition was undertaken
to refer the technical issues involved in the case to a by the buyer of the damaged building. (Record on Appeal, pp.
Commissioner. Mr. Andres O. Hizon, who was ultimately 278-280;  Ibid.)
appointed by the trial court, assumed his office as
Commissioner, charged with the duty to try the following
issues: COMMISSIONER - findings

1. Whether the damage sustained by the After the protracted hearings, the Commissioner eventually
PBA building during the August 2, 1968 submitted his report on September 25, 1970 with the findings
that while the damage sustained by the PBA building was
caused directly by the August 2, 1968 earthquake whose designer) certainly contributed to the damage which occurred.
magnitude was estimated at 7.3 they were also caused by the (Ibid, p. 174).
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, PETITIONERS ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
architects and even the owners to exercise the requisite
degree of supervision in the construction of subject In their respective briefs petitioners, among others, raised the
building. following assignments of errors: Philippine Bar Association
claimed that the measure of damages should not be limited to
All the parties registered their objections to aforesaid findings P1,100,000.00 as estimated cost of repairs or to the period of
which in turn were answered by the Commissioner. six (6) months for loss of rentals while United Construction Co.,
Inc. and the Nakpils claimed that it was an act of God that
caused the failure of the building which should exempt them
TRIAL COURT – agreed with the Commissioner from responsibility and not the defective construction, poor
workmanship, deviations from plans and specifications and
The trial court agreed with the findings of the Commissioner other imperfections in the case of United Construction Co., Inc.
except as to the holding that the owner is charged with full nine or the deficiencies in the design, plans and specifications
supervision of the construction. The Court sees no legal or prepared by petitioners in the case of the Nakpils. Both UCCI
contractual basis for such conclusion. (Record on Appeal, pp. and the Nakpils object to the payment of the additional amount
309-328; Ibid). of P200,000.00 imposed by the Court of Appeals. UCCI also
claimed that it should be reimbursed the expenses of shoring
IAC – modified the lower courrt the building in the amount of P13,661.28 while the Nakpils
opposed the payment of damages jointly and solidarity with
UCCI.
Thus, on September 21, 1971, the lower court rendered the
assailed decision which was modified by the Intermediate
Appellate Court on November 28, 1977. The pivotal issue in this case is 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
All the parties herein appealed from the decision of the liable because of their negligence.
Intermediate Appellate Court. Hence, these petitions.
Q: IS AN ACT OF GOD - AN UNUSUALLY STRONG
UNITED ARCHITECTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE EARTHQUAKE-WHICH CAUSED THE FAILURE OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, AND THE PHILIPPINE BUILDING, EXEMPTS FROM LIABILITY, PARTIES WHO ARE
INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS – amicus curiae OTHERWISE LIABLE BECAUSE OF THEIR NEGLIGENCE?

On May 11, 1978, the United Architects of the Philippines, the A: NO, when the negligence of a person concurs with an act of
Association of Civil Engineers, and the Philippine Institute of God in producing a loss, such person is not exempt from
Architects filed with the Court a motion to intervene as amicus liability.
curiae. They proposed to present a position paper on the
liability of architects when a building collapses and to submit
likewise a critical analysis with computations on the divergent The applicable law governing the rights and liabilities of the
views on the design and plans as submitted by the experts parties herein is Article 1723 of the New Civil Code, which
procured by the parties. The motion having been granted, provides:
the amicus curiae were granted a period of 60 days within
which to submit their position. Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who
drew up the plans and specifications for a
After the parties had all filed their comments, We gave due building is liable for damages if within
course to the petitions in Our Resolution of July 21, 1978. fifteen years from the completion of the
structure the same should collapse by
reason of a defect in those plans and
The position papers of the amicus curiae (submitted on specifications, or due to the defects in the
November 24, 1978) were duly noted. ground. The contractor is likewise
responsible for the damage if the edifice fags
Commissioner within the same period on account of defects
in the construction or the use of materials of
The amicus curiae gave the opinion that the plans and inferior quality furnished by him, or due to
specifications of the Nakpils were not defective. But the any violation of the terms of the contract. If
Commissioner, when asked by Us to comment, reiterated his the engineer or architect supervises the
conclusion that the defects in the plans and specifications construction, he shall be solidarily liable
indeed existed. with the contractor.

Using the same authorities availed of by the amicus curiae such Acceptance of the building, after completion,
as the Manila Code (Ord. No. 4131) and the 1966 Asep Code, does not imply waiver of any of the causes of
the Commissioner added that even if it can be proved that the action by reason of any defect mentioned in
defects in the constructionalone (and not in the plans and the preceding paragraph.
design) caused the damage to the building, still the deficiency
in the original design and jack of specific provisions against The action must be brought within ten years
torsion in the original plans and the overload on the ground following the collapse of the building.
floor columns (found by an the experts including the original
On the other hand, the general rule is that no person shall be supervision; while the third-party defendants were found
responsible for events which could not be foreseen or which to have inadequacies or defects in the plans and
though foreseen, were inevitable (Article 1174, New Civil specifications prepared by them.
Code).
As correctly assessed by both courts, the defects in the
An act of God has been defined as an accident, due directly and construction and in the plans and specifications were the
exclusively to natural causes without human intervention, proximate causes that rendered the PBA building unable to
which by no amount of foresight, pains or care, reasonably to withstand the earthquake of August 2, 1968. For this reason
have been expected, could have been prevented. (1 Corpus the defendant and third-party defendants cannot claim
Juris 1174). exemption from liability. (Decision, Court of Appeals, pp. 30-
31).
There is no dispute that the earthquake of August 2, 1968 is a
fortuitous event or an act of God. It is well settled that the findings of facts of the Court of
Appeals are conclusive on the parties and on this court (cases
To exempt the obligor from liability under Article 1174 of cited in Tolentino vs. de Jesus, 56 SCRA 67; Cesar vs.
the Civil Code, for a breach of an obligation due to an "act Sandiganbayan, January 17, 1985, 134 SCRA 105, 121), unless
of God," the following must concur: (a) the cause of the (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the speculation, surmise and conjectures; (2) the inference made is
debtor; (b) the event must be either unforseeable or manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4)
unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to render it the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the
impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal findings of fact are conflicting , (6) the Court of Appeals went
manner; and (d) the debtor must be free from any participation beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to
in, or aggravation of the injury to the creditor. (Vasquez v. the admissions of both appellant and appellees (Ramos vs.
Court of Appeals, 138 SCRA 553; Estrada v. Consolacion, 71 Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., February 8, 1967, 19 SCRA 289, 291-
SCRA 423; Austria v. Court of Appeals, 39 SCRA 527; Republic 292; Roque vs. Buan, Oct. 31, 1967, 21 SCRA 648, 651); (7) the
of the Phil. v. Luzon Stevedoring Corp., 21 SCRA 279; Lasam v. findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of
Smith, 45 Phil. 657). the trial court; (8) said findings of facts are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) the
facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main
Thus, if upon the happening of a fortuitous event or an act and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents (Garcia vs.
of God, there concurs a corresponding fraud, negligence, CA, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 622; Alsua-Bett vs. Court of
delay or violation or contravention in any manner of the Appeals, July 30, 1979, 92 SCRA 322, 366); (10) the finding of
tenor of the obligation as provided for in Article 1170 of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed
the Civil Code, which results in loss or damage, the obligor absence of evidence and is contradicted by evidence on record
cannot escape liability. (Salazar vs. Gutierrez, May 29, 1970, 33 SCRA 243, 247; Cited in
G.R. No. 66497-98, Sacay v. Sandiganbayan, July 10, 1986).
The principle embodied in the act of God doctrine strictly
requires that the act must be one occasioned exclusively by the It is evident that the case at bar does not fall under any of the
violence of nature and all human agencies are to be excluded exceptions above-mentioned. On the contrary, the records
from creating or entering into the cause of the mischief. When show that the lower court spared no effort in arriving at the
the effect, the cause of which is to be considered, is found to be correct appreciation of facts by the referral of technical issues
in part the result of the participation of man, whether it be to a Commissioner chosen by the parties whose findings and
from active intervention or neglect, or failure to act, the whole conclusions remained convincingly unrebutted by the
occurrence is thereby humanized, as it were, and removed intervenors/amicus curiae who were allowed to intervene in
from the rules applicable to the acts of God. (1 Corpus Juris, pp. the Supreme Court.
1174-1175).
In any event, the relevant and logical observations of the trial
Thus it has been held that when the negligence of a person court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals that "while it is not
concurs with an act of God in producing a loss, such person is possible to state with certainty that the building would not
not exempt from liability by showing that the immediate cause have collapsed were those defects not present, the fact remains
of the damage was the act of God. To be exempt from liability that several buildings in the same area withstood the
for loss because of an act of God, he must be free from any earthquake to which the building of the plaintiff was similarly
previous negligence or misconduct by which that loss or subjected," cannot be ignored.
damage may have been occasioned. (Fish & Elective Co. v. Phil.
Motors, 55 Phil. 129; Tucker v. Milan, 49 O.G. 4379; Limpangco
& Sons v. Yangco Steamship Co., 34 Phil. 594, 604; Lasam v. The next issue to be resolved is the amount of damages to be
Smith, 45 Phil. 657). awarded to the PBA for the partial collapse (and eventual
complete collapse) of its building.
Q: SO, WAS THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE DEFENDANT AND
THE THIRD-PART DEFENDANTS ESTABLISHED BEYOND The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the trial court
DISPUTE? based on the report of the Commissioner that the total amount
required to repair the PBA building and to restore it to
tenantable condition was P900,000.00 inasmuch as it was not
A: YES initially a total loss. However, while the trial court awarded the
PBA said amount as damages, plus unrealized rental income for
The negligence of the defendant and the third-party defendants one-half year, the Court of Appeals modified the amount by
petitioners was established beyond dispute both in the lower awarding in favor of PBA an additional sum of P200,000.00
court and in the Intermediate Appellate Court. Defendant representing the damage suffered by the PBA building as a
United Construction Co., Inc. was found to have made result of another earthquake that occurred on April 7, 1970 (L-
substantial deviations from the plans and specifications. 47896, Vol. I, p. 92).
and to have failed to observe the requisite workmanship in the
construction as well as to exercise the requisite degree of
The PBA in its brief insists that the proper award should be speculations and on theological fatalism
P1,830,000.00 representing the total value of the building (L- both of which ignore the plain facts. The
47896, PBA's No. 1 Assignment of Error, p. 19), while both the lengthy discussion of United on ordinary
NAKPILS and UNITED question the additional award of earthquakes and unusually strong
P200,000.00 in favor of the PBA (L- 47851, NAKPIL's Brief as earthquakes and on ordinary fortuitous
Petitioner, p. 6, UNITED's Brief as Petitioner, p. 25). The PBA events and extraordinary fortuitous events
further urges that the unrealized rental income awarded to it leads to its argument that the August 2,
should not be limited to a period of one-half year but should be 1968 earthquake was of such an
computed on a continuing basis at the rate of P178,671.76 a overwhelming and destructive character
year until the judgment for the principal amount shall have that by its own force and independent of the
been satisfied L- 47896, PBA's No. 11 Assignment of Errors, p. particular negligence alleged, the injury
19). would have been produced. If we follow this
line of speculative reasoning, we will be
The collapse of the PBA building as a result of the August 2, forced to conclude that under such a
1968 earthquake was only partial and it is undisputed that the situation scores of buildings in the vicinity
building could then still be repaired and restored to its and in other parts of Manila would have
tenantable condition. The PBA, however, in view of its lack of toppled down. Following the same line of
needed funding, was unable, thru no fault of its own, to have reasoning, Nakpil and Sons alleges that the
the building repaired. UNITED, on the other hand, spent designs were adequate in accordance with
P13,661.28 to shore up the building after the August 2, 1968 pre-August 2, 1968 knowledge and appear
earthquake (L-47896, CA Decision, p. 46). Because of the inadequate only in the light of engineering
earthquake on April 7, 1970, the trial court after the needed information acquired after the earthquake. If
consultations, authorized the total demolition of the building this were so, hundreds of ancient buildings
(L-47896, Vol. 1, pp. 53-54). which survived the earthquake better than
the two-year old PBA building must have
been designed and constructed by architects
Q: SHOULD NAKPILS AND UNITED BE LIABLE FOR THE and contractors whose knowledge and
DAMAGE RESULTING FROM THE PARTIAL AND EVENTUAL foresight were unexplainably auspicious and
COLLAPSE OF THE PBA BUILDING AS A RESULT OF THE prophetic. Fortunately, the facts on record
EARTHQUAKE? allow a more down to earth explanation of
the collapse. The failure of the PBA building,
A: YES as a unique and distinct construction with
no reference or comparison to other
There should be no question that the NAKPILS and UNITED are buildings, to weather the severe earthquake
liable for the damage resulting from the partial and eventual forces was traced to design deficiencies and
collapse of the PBA building as a result of the earthquakes. defective construction, factors which are
neither mysterious nor esoteric. The
theological allusion of appellant United that
We quote with approval the following from the erudite God acts in mysterious ways His wonders to
decision penned by Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez (now an Associate perform impresses us to be inappropriate.
Justice of the Supreme Court) while still an Associate Justice of The evidence reveals defects and
the Court of Appeals: deficiencies in design and construction.
There is no mystery about these acts of
There is no question that an earthquake and negligence. The collapse of the PBA building
other forces of nature such as cyclones, was no wonder performed by God. It was a
drought, floods, lightning, and perils of the result of the imperfections in the work of the
sea are acts of God. It does not necessarily architects and the people in the construction
follow, however, that specific losses and company. More relevant to our mind is the
suffering resulting from the occurrence lesson from the parable of the wise man in
of these natural force are also acts of God. the Sermon on the Mount "which built his
We are not convinced on the basis of the house upon a rock; and the rain descended
evidence on record that from the thousands and the floods came and the winds blew and
of structures in Manila, God singled out the beat upon that house; and it fen not; for it
blameless PBA building in Intramuros and was founded upon a rock" and of the "foolish
around six or seven other buildings in upon the sand. And the rain descended and
various parts of the city for collapse or man which built his house the floods came,
severe damage and that God alone was and the winds blew, and beat upon that
responsible for the damages and losses thus house; and it fell and great was the fall of it.
suffered. (St. Matthew 7: 24-27)." The requirement
that a building should withstand rains,
The record is replete with evidence of floods, winds, earthquakes, and natural
defects and deficiencies in the designs forces is precisely the reason why we have
and plans, defective construction, poor professional experts like architects, and
workmanship, deviation from plans and engineers. Designs and constructions vary
specifications and other imperfections. under varying circumstances and conditions
These deficiencies are attributable to but the requirement to design and build well
negligent men and not to a perfect God. does not change.

The act-of-God arguments of the defendants- The findings of the lower Court on the cause
appellants and third party defendants- of the collapse are more rational and
appellants presented in their briefs are accurate. Instead of laying the blame solely
premised on legal generalizations or on the motions and forces generated by the
earthquake, it also examined the ability of 3. Building leaned and sagged more on the
the PBA building, as designed and front part of the building.
constructed, to withstand and successfully
weather those forces. 4. Floors showed maximum sagging on the
sides and toward the front corner parts of
The evidence sufficiently supports a the building.
conclusion that the negligence and fault of
both United and Nakpil and Sons, not a 5. There was a lateral displacement of the
mysterious act of an inscrutable God, were building of about 8", Maximum sagging
responsible for the damages. The Report of occurs at the column A7 where the floor is
the Commissioner, Plaintiff's Objections to lower by 80 cm. than the highest slab level.
the Report, Third Party Defendants'
Objections to the Report, Defendants'
Objections to the Report, Commissioner's 6. Slab at the corner column D7 sagged by 38
Answer to the various Objections, Plaintiffs' cm.
Reply to the Commissioner's Answer,
Defendants' Reply to the Commissioner's The Commissioner concluded that there
Answer, Counter-Reply to Defendants' were deficiencies or defects in the design,
Reply, and Third-Party Defendants' Reply to plans and specifications of the PBA
the Commissioner's Report not to mention building which involved appreciable
the exhibits and the testimonies show that risks with respect to the accidental forces
the main arguments raised on appeal were which may result from earthquake
already raised during the trial and fully shocks. He conceded, however, that the fact
considered by the lower Court. A reiteration that those deficiencies or defects may have
of these same arguments on appeal fails to arisen from an obsolete or not too
convince us that we should reverse or conservative code or even a code that does
disturb the lower Court's factual findings not require a design for earthquake forces
and its conclusions drawn from the facts, mitigates in a large measure the
among them: responsibility or liability of the architect and
engineer designer.
The Commissioner also found merit in the
allegations of the defendants as to the The Third-party defendants, who are the
physical evidence before and after the most concerned with this portion of the
earthquake showing the inadequacy of Commissioner's report, voiced opposition to
design, to wit: the same on the grounds that (a) the finding
is based on a basic erroneous conception as
Physical evidence before the earthquake to the design concept of the building, to wit,
providing (sic) inadequacy of design; that the design is essentially that of a heavy
rectangular box on stilts with shear wan at
one end; (b) the finding that there were
1. inadequate design was the cause of the defects and a deficiency in the design of the
failure of the building. building would at best be based on an
approximation and, therefore, rightly
2. Sun-baffles on the two sides and in front belonged to the realm of speculation, rather
of the building; than of certainty and could very possibly be
outright error; (c) the Commissioner has
a. Increase the inertia forces that move the failed to back up or support his finding with
building laterally toward the Manila Fire extensive, complex and highly specialized
Department. computations and analyzes which he himself
emphasizes are necessary in the
determination of such a highly technical
b. Create another stiffness imbalance. question; and (d) the Commissioner has
analyzed the design of the PBA building not
3. The embedded 4" diameter cast iron in the light of existing and available
down spout on all exterior columns reduces earthquake engineering knowledge at the
the cross-sectional area of each of the time of the preparation of the design, but in
columns and the strength thereof. the light of recent and current standards.

4. Two front corners, A7 and D7 columns The Commissioner answered the said
were very much less reinforced. objections alleging that third-party
defendants' objections were based on
Physical Evidence After the Earthquake, estimates or exhibits not presented during
Proving Inadequacy of design; the hearing that the resort to engineering
references posterior to the date of the
preparation of the plans was induced by the
1. Column A7 suffered the severest fracture third-party defendants themselves who
and maximum sagging. Also D7. submitted computations of the third-party
defendants are erroneous.
2. There are more damages in the front part
of the building than towards the rear, not The issue presently considered is admittedly
only in columns but also in slabs. a technical one of the highest degree. It
involves questions not within the ordinary (1) Wrongful and defective placing of
competence of the bench and the bar to reinforcing bars.
resolve by themselves. Counsel for the third-
party defendants has aptly remarked that (2) Absence of effective and desirable
"engineering, although dealing in integration of the 3 bars in the cluster.
mathematics, is not an exact science and
that the present knowledge as to the nature
of earthquakes and the behaviour of forces (3) Oversize coarse aggregates: 1-1/4 to 2"
generated by them still leaves much to be were used. Specification requires no larger
desired; so much so "that the experts of the than 1 inch.
different parties, who are all engineers,
cannot agree on what equation to use, as to (4) Reinforcement assembly is not
what earthquake co-efficients are, on the concentric with the column, eccentricity
codes to be used and even as to the type of being 3" off when on one face the main bars
structure that the PBA building (is) was (p. are only 1 1/2' from the surface.
29, Memo, of third- party defendants before
the Commissioner). (5) Prevalence of honeycombs,

The difficulty expected by the Court if tills (6) Contraband construction joints,
technical matter were to be tried and
inquired into by the Court itself, coupled
with the intrinsic nature of the questions (7) Absence, or omission, or over spacing of
involved therein, constituted the reason for spiral hoops,
the reference of the said issues to a
Commissioner whose qualifications and (8) Deliberate severance of spirals into
experience have eminently qualified him for semi-circles in noted on Col. A-5, ground
the task, and whose competence had not floor,
been questioned by the parties until he
submitted his report. Within the pardonable (9) Defective construction joints in Columns
limit of the Court's ability to comprehend A-3, C-7, D-7 and D-4, ground floor,
the meaning of the Commissioner's report
on this issue, and the objections voiced to
the same, the Court sees no compelling (10) Undergraduate concrete is evident,
reasons to disturb the findings of the
Commissioner that there were defects and (11) Big cavity in core of Column 2A-4,
deficiencies in the design, plans and second floor,
specifications prepared by third-party
defendants, and that said defects and (12) Columns buckled at different planes.
deficiencies involved appreciable risks with Columns buckled worst where there are no
respect to the accidental forces which may spirals or where spirals are cut. Columns
result from earthquake shocks. suffered worst displacement where the
eccentricity of the columnar reinforcement
(2) (a) The deviations, if any, made by the assembly is more acute.
defendants from the plans and
specifications, and how said deviations b. Summary of alleged defects as reported by
contributed to the damage sustained by the Engr. Antonio Avecilla.
building.
Columns are first (or ground) floor, unless
(b) The alleged failure of defendants to otherwise stated.
observe the requisite quality of materials
and workmanship in the construction of the
building. (1) Column D4 — Spacing of spiral is
changed from 2" to 5" on centers,

These two issues, being interrelated with

each other, will be discussed together. (2) Column D5 — No spiral up to a height of
22" from the ground floor,

The findings of the Commissioner on these

issues were as follows: (3) Column D6 — Spacing of spiral over 4
l/2,

We now turn to the construction of the PBA

Building and the alleged deficiencies or (4) Column D7 — Lack of lateral ties,
defects in the construction and violations
or deviations from the plans and (5) Column C7 — Absence of spiral to a
specifications. All these may be height of 20" from the ground level, Spirals
summarized as follows: are at 2" from the exterior column face and
6" from the inner column face,
a. Summary of alleged defects as reported by
Engineer Mario M. Bundalian. (6) Column B6 — Lack of spiral on 2 feet
below the floor beams,
(7) Column B5 — Lack of spirals at a applicable to the requirements for ductility
distance of 26' below the beam, and strength of reinforced concrete in
earthquake-resistant design and
(8) Column B7 — Spirals not tied to vertical construction.
reinforcing bars, Spirals are uneven 2" to 4",
We shall first classify and consider defects
(9) Column A3 — Lack of lateral ties, which may have appreciable bearing or
relation to' the earthquake-resistant
property of the building.
(10) Column A4 — Spirals cut off and
welded to two separate clustered vertical
bars, As heretofore mentioned, details which
insure ductility at or near the connections
between columns and girders are desirable
(11) Column A4 — (second floor Column is in earthquake resistant design and
completely hollow to a height of 30" construction. The omission of spirals and
ties or hoops at the bottom and/or tops of
(12) Column A5 — Spirals were cut from the columns contributed greatly to the loss of
floor level to the bottom of the spandrel earthquake-resistant strength. The plans
beam to a height of 6 feet, and specifications required that these
spirals and ties be carried from the floor
(13) Column A6 — No spirals up to a height level to the bottom reinforcement of the
of 30' above the ground floor level, deeper beam (p. 1, Specifications, p. 970,
Reference 11). There were several clear
evidences where this was not done
(14) Column A7— Lack of lateralties or especially in some of the ground floor
spirals, columns which failed.

c. Summary of alleged defects as reported by There were also unmistakable evidences

the experts of the Third-Party defendants. that the spacings of the spirals and ties in
the columns were in many cases greater
Ground floor columns. than those called for in the plans and
specifications resulting again in loss of
(1) Column A4 — Spirals are cut, earthquake-resistant strength. The assertion
of the engineering experts for the
defendants that the improper spacings and
(2) Column A5 — Spirals are cut, the cutting of the spirals did not result in
loss of strength in the column cannot be
(3) Column A6 — At lower 18" spirals are maintained and is certainly contrary to the
absent, general principles of column design and
construction. And even granting that there
(4) Column A7 — Ties are too far apart, be no loss in strength at the yield point (an
assumption which is very doubtful) the
cutting or improper spacings of spirals will
(5) Column B5 — At upper fourth of column certainly result in the loss of the plastic
spirals are either absent or improperly range or ductility in the column and it is
spliced, precisely this plastic range or ductility
which is desirable and needed for
(6) Column B6 — At upper 2 feet spirals are earthquake-resistant strength.
absent,
There is no excuse for the cavity or hollow
(7) Column B7 — At upper fourth of column portion in the column A4, second floor, and
spirals missing or improperly spliced. although this column did not fail, this is
certainly an evidence on the part of the
(8) Column C7— Spirals are absent at contractor of poor construction.
lowest 18"
The effect of eccentricities in the columns
(9) Column D5 — At lowest 2 feet spirals are which were measured at about 2 1/2 inches
absent, maximum may be approximated in relation
to column loads and column and beam
moments. The main effect of eccentricity is
(10) Column D6 — Spirals are too far apart to change the beam or girder span. The
and apparently improperly spliced, effect on the measured eccentricity of 2
inches, therefore, is to increase or diminish
(11) Column D7 — Lateral ties are too far the column load by a maximum of about 1%
apart, spaced 16" on centers. and to increase or diminish the column or
beam movements by about a maximum of
There is merit in many of these allegations. 2%. While these can certainly be absorbed
The explanations given by the engineering within the factor of safety, they nevertheless
experts for the defendants are either diminish said factor of safety.
contrary to general principles of engineering
design for reinforced concrete or not
The cutting of the spirals in column A5, top of some of the ground floor columns
ground floor is the subject of great contributed greatly to the collapse of the
contention between the parties and PBA building since it is at these points
deserves special consideration. where the greater part of the failure
occurred. The liability for the cutting of the
The proper placing of the main spirals in column A5, ground floor, in the
reinforcements and spirals in column A5, considered opinion of the Commissioner
ground floor, is the responsibility of the rests on the shoulders of the defendants and
general contractor which is the UCCI. The the loss of strength in this column
burden of proof, therefore, that this cutting contributed to the damage which occurred.
was done by others is upon the defendants.
Other than a strong allegation and assertion It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that
that it is the plumber or his men who may the proven defects, deficiencies and
have done the cutting (and this was flatly violations of the plans and specifications of
denied by the plumber) no conclusive proof the PBA building contributed to the damages
was presented. The engineering experts for which resulted during the earthquake of
the defendants asserted that they could have August 2, 1968 and the vice of these defects
no motivation for cutting the bar because and deficiencies is that they not only
they can simply replace the spirals by increase but also aggravate the weakness
wrapping around a new set of spirals. This is mentioned in the design of the structure. In
not quite correct. There is evidence to show other words, these defects and deficiencies
that the pouring of concrete for columns was not only tend to add but also to multiply the
sometimes done through the beam and effects of the shortcomings in the design of
girder reinforcements which were already the building. We may say, therefore, that the
in place as in the case of column A4 second defects and deficiencies in the construction
floor. If the reinforcement for the girder and contributed greatly to the damage which
column is to subsequently wrap around the occurred.
spirals, this would not do for the elasticity of
steel would prevent the making of tight Since the execution and supervision of the
column spirals and loose or improper spirals construction work in the hands of the
would result. The proper way is to produce contractor is direct and positive, the
correct spirals down from the top of the presence of existence of all the major defects
main column bars, a procedure which can and deficiencies noted and proven manifests
not be done if either the beam or girder an element of negligence which may amount
reinforcement is already in place. The to imprudence in the construction work.
engineering experts for the defendants (pp. 42-49, Commissioners Report).
strongly assert and apparently believe that
the cutting of the spirals did not materially
diminish the strength of the column. This DEFENDANTS – “the commissioner should have specified
belief together with the difficulty of slipping the defects found by him to be meritorious”
the spirals on the top of the column once the
beam reinforcement is in place may be a As the parties most directly concerned with this portion of the
sufficient motivation for the cutting of the Commissioner's report, the defendants voiced their objections
spirals themselves. The defendants, to the same on the grounds that the Commissioner should have
therefore, should be held responsible for the specified the defects found by him to be "meritorious"; that the
consequences arising from the loss of Commissioner failed to indicate the number of cases where the
strength or ductility in column A5 which spirals and ties were not carried from the floor level to the
may have contributed to the damages bottom reinforcement of the deeper beam, or where the
sustained by the building. spacing of the spirals and ties in the columns were greater than
that called for in the specifications; that the hollow in column
The lack of proper length of splicing of A4, second floor, the eccentricities in the columns, the lack of
spirals was also proven in the visible spirals proper length of splicing of spirals, and the cut in the spirals in
of the columns where spalling of the column A5, ground floor, did not aggravate or contribute to the
concrete cover had taken place. This lack of damage suffered by the building; that the defects in the
proper splicing contributed in a small construction were within the tolerable margin of safety; and
measure to the loss of strength. that the cutting of the spirals in column A5, ground floor, was
done by the plumber or his men, and not by the defendants.
The effects of all the other proven and
visible defects although nor can certainly be COMMISSIONER
accumulated so that they can contribute to
an appreciable loss in earthquake-resistant Answering the said objections, the Commissioner stated that,
strength. The engineering experts for the since many of the defects were minor only the totality of the
defendants submitted an estimate on some defects was considered. As regards the objection as to failure to
of these defects in the amount of a few state the number of cases where the spirals and ties were not
percent. If accumulated, therefore, including carried from the floor level to the bottom reinforcement, the
the effect of eccentricity in the column the Commissioner specified groundfloor columns B-6 and C-5 the
loss in strength due to these minor defects first one without spirals for 03 inches at the top, and in the
may run to as much as ten percent. latter, there were no spirals for 10 inches at the bottom. The
Commissioner likewise specified the first storey columns
To recapitulate: the omission or lack of where the spacings were greater than that called for in the
spirals and ties at the bottom and/or at the specifications to be columns B-5, B-6, C-7, C-6, C-5, D-5 and B-7.
The objection to the failure of the Commissioner to specify the
number of columns where there was lack of proper length of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00) Pesos as and for
splicing of spirals, the Commissioner mentioned groundfloor attorney's fees, the total sum being payable upon the finality of
columns B-6 and B-5 where all the splices were less than 1-1/2 this decision. Upon failure to pay on such finality, twelve (12%)
turns and were not welded, resulting in some loss of strength per cent interest per annum shall be imposed upon afore-
which could be critical near the ends of the columns. He mentioned amounts from finality until paid. Solidary costs
answered the supposition of the defendants that the spirals against the defendant and third-party defendants (except
and the ties must have been looted, by calling attention to the Roman Ozaeta).
fact that the missing spirals and ties were only in two out of the
25 columns, which rendered said supposition to be improbable. SO ORDERED.

The Commissioner conceded that the hollow in column A-4,

second floor, did not aggravate or contribute to the damage,
but averred that it is "evidence of poor construction." On the
claim that the eccentricity could be absorbed within the factor
of safety, the Commissioner answered that, while the same may
be true, it also contributed to or aggravated the damage
suffered by the building.

The objection regarding the cutting of the spirals in Column A-

5, groundfloor, was answered by the Commissioner by
reiterating the observation in his report that irrespective of
who did the cutting of the spirals, the defendants should be
held liable for the same as the general contractor of the
building. The Commissioner further stated that the loss of
strength of the cut spirals and inelastic deflections of the
supposed lattice work defeated the purpose of the spiral
containment in the column and resulted in the loss of strength,
as evidenced by the actual failure of this column.

Again, the Court concurs in the findings of the Commissioner

on these issues and fails to find any sufficient cause to
disregard or modify the same. As found by the Commissioner,
the "deviations made by the defendants from the plans and
specifications caused indirectly the damage sustained and that
those deviations not only added but also aggravated the
damage caused by the defects in the plans and specifications
prepared by third-party defendants. (Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 128-142)

The afore-mentioned facts clearly indicate the wanton

negligence of both the defendant and the third-party
defendants in effecting the plans, designs, specifications, and
construction of the PBA building and We hold such negligence
as equivalent to bad faith in the performance of their respective
tasks.

Relative thereto, the ruling of the Supreme Court in Tucker v.

Milan (49 O.G. 4379, 4380) which may be in point in this case
reads:

One who negligently creates a dangerous condition cannot

escape liability for the natural and probable consequences
thereof, although the act of a third person, or an act of God for
which he is not responsible, intervenes to precipitate the loss.

As already discussed, the destruction was not purely an act of

God. Truth to tell hundreds of ancient buildings in the vicinity
were hardly affected by the earthquake. Only one thing spells
out the fatal difference; gross negligence and evident bad faith,
without which the damage would not have occurred.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED

and considering the special and environmental circumstances
of this case, We deem it reasonable to render a decision
imposing, as We do hereby impose, upon the defendant and the
third-party defendants (with the exception of Roman Ozaeta)
a solidary (Art. 1723, Civil Code, Supra,  p. 10) indemnity in
favor of the Philippine Bar Association of FIVE MILLION
(P5,000,000.00) Pesos to cover all damages (with the exception
of attorney's fees) occasioned by the loss of the building
(including interest charges and lost rentals) and an additional