debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation

of the injury to the creditor.

Same; Same; Having made substantial deviations from
plans and specifications, having failed to observe requisite
workmanship in construction, and the architect made plans
that contain defects and inadequacies, both contractor and
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED architect cannot escape liability for damages sustained by the
building that collapsed in the wake of an earthquake on Aug.
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
2, 1968.—The negligence of the defendant and the third-
* party defendants petitioners was established beyond dispute
No. L-47851. October 3, 1986. both in the lower court and in the Intermediate Appellate
Court. Defendant United Construction Co., Inc. was found to
JUAN F. NAKPIL & SONS, and JUAN F. NAKPIL, have made substantial deviations from the plans and
petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, UNITED specifications, and to have failed to observe the requisite
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., JUAN J. workmanship in the construction as well as to exercise the
CARLOS, and the PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION, requisite degree of supervision; while the
respondents.
* _______________
No. L-47863. October 3, 1986.
* SECOND DIVISION.
THE UNITED CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.,
petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.,
respondents. 597

*
No. L-47896. October 3, 1986.
VOL. 144, OCTOBER 3, 1986 597
PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,
petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
respondents.
third-party defendants were found to have inadequacies or
Obligations and Contracts; Damages; Requisites for defects in the plans and specifications prepared by them. As
exemption from liability due to an “act of God.”—To exempt correctly assessed by both courts, the defects in the
the obligor from liability under Article 1174 of the Civil Code, construction and in the plans and specifications were the
for a breach of an obligation due to an “act of God,’ the proximate causes that rendered the PBA building unable to
following must concur: (a) the cause of the breach of the withstand the earthquake of August 2, 1968. For this reason
obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor; (b) the defendant and third-party defendants cannot claim
the event must be either unforseeable or unavoidable; (c) the exemption from liability.
event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor Same; Same; Fact that all other buildings withstood the
to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and (d) the earthquake, except the one at bar, cannot be ignored.—In any
event, the relevant and logical observations of the trial court
as affirmed by the Court of Appeals that “while it is not 598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
possible to state with certainty that the building would not
have collapsed were those defects not present, the fact Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
remains that several buildings in the same area withstood
the earthquake to which the building of the plaintiff was top of the column once the beam reinforcement is in place
similarly subjected,” cannot be ignored. may be a sufficient motivation for the cutting of the spirals
Same; Same; The lower courts found, among others, that themselves. The defendants, therefore, should be held
spirals in column A5, ground floor were cut.—The cutting of responsible for the consequences arising from the loss of
the spirals in column A5, ground floor is the subject of great strength or ductility in column A5 which may have
contention between the parties and deserves special contributed to the damages sustained by the building.
consideration. The proper placing of the main reinforcements Same; Same; One who creates a dangerous condition
and spirals in column A5, ground floor, is the responsibility cannot escape liability although an act of God may have
of the general contractor which is the UCCI. The burden of intervened.—Relative thereto, the ruling of the Supreme
proof, therefore, that this cutting was done by others is upon Court in Tucker v. Milan (49 O.G. 4379, 4380) which may be
the defendants. Other than a strong allegation and assertion in point in this case, reads: “One who negligently creates a
that it is the plumber or his men who may have done the dangerous condition cannot escape liability for the natural
cutting (and this was flatly denied by the plumber) no and probable consequences thereof, although the act of a
conclusive proof was presented. The engineering experts for third person, or an act of God for which he is not responsible,
the defendants asserted that they could have no motivation intervenes to precipitate the loss.” As already discussed, the
for cutting the bar because they can simply replace the destruction was not purely an act of God. Truth to tell
spirals by wrapping around a new set of spirals. This is not hundreds of ancient buildings in the vicinity were hardly
quite correct. There is evidence to show that the pouring of affected by the earthquake. Only one thing spells out the
concrete for columns was sometimes done through the beam fatal difference; gross negligence and evident bad faith,
and girder reinforcements which were already in place as in without which the damage would not have occurred.
the case of column A4 second floor. If the reinforcement for
Same: Same; Liability of architect and contractor for
the girder and column is to subsequently wrap around the
collapse of building is solidary.—WHEREFORE, the decision
spirals, this would not do for the elasticity of steel would
appealed from is hereby MODIFIED and considering the
prevent the making of tight column spirals and loose or
special and environmental circumstances of this case, We
improper spirals would result. The proper way is to produce
deem it reasonable to render a decision imposing, as We do
correct spirals down from the top of the main column bars, a
hereby impose, upon the defendant and the third-party
procedure which can not be done if either the beam or girder
defendants (with the exception of Roman Ozaeta) a solidary
reinforcement is already in place. The engineering experts
(Art. 1723, Civil Code, Supra, p. 10) indemnity in favor of the
for the defendants strongly assert and apparently believe
Philippine Bar Association of FIVE MILLION
that the cutting of the spirals did not materially diminish the
(P5,000,000.00) Pesos to cover all damages (with the
strength of the column. This belief together with the
exception of attorney’s fees) occasioned by the loss of the
difficulty of slipping the spirals on the
building (including interest charges and lost rentals) and an
additional ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P100,000.00)
598
Pesos as and for attorney’s fees, the total sum being payable
upon the finality of this decision. Upon failure to pay on such
finality, twelve (12%) per cent interest per annum shall be “(b) Dismissing the complaint with respect to defendant
imposed upon afore-mentioned amounts from finality until Juan J. Carlos;
paid. Solidary costs against the defendant and third-party “(c) Dismissing the third-party complaint;
defendants (except Roman Ozaeta). “(d) Dismissing the defendant’s and third-party
defendants’ counterclaims for lack of merit;
PETITIONS for certiorari to review the decision of the
Court of Appeals. “(e) Ordering defendant United Construction Co., Inc.
and third-party defendants (except Roman Ozaeta) to
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. pay the costs in equal shares.

599 “SO ORDERED.” (Record on Appeal, p. 521; Rollo, L-

47851, p. 169).
VOL. 144, OCTOBER 3, 1986 599
The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals Appeals reads:

“WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is modified to

PARAS, J.:
include an award of P200,000.00 in favor of plaintiff-
These are petitions for review on certiorari of the appellant Philippine Bar Association, with interest at the
November28, 1977 decision of the Court of Appeals in legal rate from November 29, 1968 until full payment to be
CA G.R. No.51771-R modifying the decision of the paid jointly and severally by defen-
Court of First Instanceof Manila, Branch V, in Civil 600
Case No. 74958 dated September21, 1971 as modified
by the Order of the lower court datedDecember 8,
1971. The Court of Appeals in modifying the decision of 600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the lower court included an award of an Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
additionalamount of P200,000.00 to the Philippine Bar
Association to bepaid jointly and severally by the dant United Construction Co., Inc. and third party
defendant United Construction Co. and by the third- defendants (except Roman Ozaeta). In all other respects, the
party defendants Juan F.Nakpil and Sons and Juan F. judgment dated September 21, 1971 as modified in the
Nakpil. December 8, 1971 Order of the lower court is hereby affirmed
The dispositive portion of the modified decision of the with COSTS to be paid by the defendant and third party
lower court reads: defendant (except Roman Ozaeta) in equal shares.
“SO ORDERED.”
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
Petitioners Juan F. Nakpil & Sons in L-47851 and
“(a) Ordering defendant United Construction Co., Inc.
United Construction Co., Inc. and Juan J. Carlos in L-
and third-party defendants (except Roman Ozaeta) to
47863 seek the reversal of the decision of the Court of
pay the plaintiff, jointly and severally, the sum of
Appeals, among other things, for exoneration from
P989,335.68 with interest at the legal rate from
liability while petitioner Philippine Bar Association in
November 29, 1968, the date of the filing of the
L-47896 seeks the modification of aforesaid decision to
complaint until full payment;
obtain an award of P1,830,000.00 for the loss of the vacated the building in view of its precarious condition.
PBA building plus four (4) times such amount as As a temporary remedial measure, the building was
damages resulting in increased cost of the building; shored up by United Construction, Inc. at the cost of
P100,000.00 as exemplary damages; and P100,000.00 P13,661.28.
as attorney’s fees. On November 29, 1968, the plaintiff commenced
These petitions arising from the same case filed in this action for the recovery of damages arising from the
the Court of First Instance of Manila were consolidated partial collapse of the building against United
by this Court in the resolution of May 10, 1978 Construction, Inc. and its President and General
requiring the respective respondents to comment. Manager Juan J. Carlos as defendants. Plaintiff
(Rollo, L-47851, p. 172). alleges that the collapse of the building was accused by
The facts as found by the lower court (Decision, CC. defects in the construction, the failure of the
No. 74958; Record on Appeal, pp. 269-348; pp. 520-521; contractors to follow plans and specifications and
Rollo, L-47851, p. 169) and affirmed by the Court of violations by the defendants of the terms of the
Appeals are as follows: contract.
The plaintiff, Philippine Bar Association, a civic- Defendants in turn filed a third-party complaint
non-profit association, incorporated under the against the architects who prepared the plans and
Corporation Law, decided to construct an office specifications, alleging in essence that the collapse of
building on its 840 square meters lot located at the the building was due to the defects in the said plans
comer of Aduana and Arzobispo Streets, Intramuros, and specifications. Roman Ozaeta, the then president
Manila. The construction was undertaken by the of the plaintiff Bar Association was included as a third-
United Construction, Inc. on an “administration” basis, party defendant for damages for having included Juan
on the suggestion of Juan J. Carlos, the president and J. Carlos, President of the United Construction Co.,
general manager of said corporation. The proposal was Inc. as party defendant.
approved by plaintiff’s board of directors and signed by On March 3, 1969, the plaintiff and third-party
its president Roman Ozaeta, a third-party defendant in defendants Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and Juan F. Nakpil
this case. The plans and specifications for the building presented a written stipulation which reads:
were prepared by the other third-party defendants
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons. The building was completed in “1. That in relation to defendants’ answer with
June, 1966. counterclaims and third-party complaints and the
third-party defendants Nakpil & Sons’ answer
601 thereto, the plaintiff need not amend its complaint by
including the said Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and Juan
F. Nakpil personally as parties defendant.
VOL. 144, OCTOBER 3, 1986 601
2. That in the event (unexpected by the undersigned)
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals that the Court should find after the trial that the
above-named defendants Juan J. Carlos and United
In the early morning of August 2, 1968 an unusually Construction Co., Inc. are free from any blame and
strong earthquake hit Manila and its environs and the liability for the collapse of the PBA Building, and
building in question sustained major damage. The should further find that the collapse of said building
front columns of the building buckled, causing the was due to defects and/or inadequacy of the plans,
building to tilt forward dangerously. The tenants
 designs, and specifications prepared by the third- (b) The deviations, if any, made by the defendants from
party defendants, or in the event that the Court may said plans and specifications and how said deviations
contributed to the damage sustained;
602 (c) The alleged failure of defendants to observe the
requisite quality of materials and workmanship in
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED the construction of the building;
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals (d) The alleged failure to exercise the requisite degree of
supervision expected of the architect, the contractor
find Juan F. Nakpil and Sons and/or Juan F. Nakpil and/or the owner of the building;
contributorily negligent or in any way jointly and (e) An act of God or a fortuitous event; and
solidarity liable with the defendants, judgment may (f) Any other cause not herein above specified.
be rendered in whole or in part, as the case may be,
against Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and/or Juan F. Nakpil 2. If the cause of the damage suffered by the building
in favor of the plaintiff to all intents and purposes as arose from a combination of the above-enumerated
if plaintiff’s complaint has been duly amended by factors, the degree or
including the said Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and Juan
F. Nakpil as parties defendant and by alleging causes 603
of action against them including, among others, the
defects or inadequacy of the plans, designs, and VOL. 144, OCTOBER 3, 1986 603
specifications prepared by them and/or failure in the
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
performance of their contract with plaintiff.
3. Both parties hereby jointly petition this Honorable
proportion in which each individual factor
Court to approve this stipulation.” (Record on Appeal,
contributed to the damage sustained;
pp. 274-275; Rollo, L-47851, p. 169).
3. Whether the building is now a total loss and should
Upon the issues being joined, a pre-trial was conducted be completely demolished or whether it may still be
on March 7, 1969, during which among others, the repaired and restored to a tenantable condition. In
parties agreed to refer the technical issues involved in the latter case, the determination of the cost of such
the case to a Commissioner. Mr. Andres O. Hizon, who restoration or repair, and the value of any remaining
was ultimately appointed by the trial court, assumed construction, such as the foundation, which may still
his office as Commissioner, charged with the duty to be utilized or availed of.” (Record on Appeal, pp. 275-
try the following issues: 276; Rollo, L-47851, p. 169).

“1. Whether the damage sustained by the PBA building Thus, the issues of this case were divided into
during the August 2, 1968 earthquake had been technical issues and non-technical issues. As
caused, directly or indirectly, by: aforestated the technical issues were referred to the
Commissioner. The non-technical issues were tried by
(a) The inadequacies or defects in the plans and the Court.
specifications prepared by third-party defendants; Meanwhile, 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 Thus, on September 21, 1971, the lower court
opposed by the defendants and the matter was referred rendered the assailed decision which was modified by
to the Commissioner. Finally, on April 30, 1979 the the Intermediate Appellate Court on November 28,
building was authorized to be demolished at the 1977.
expense of the plaintiff, but not another earthquake of All the parties herein appealed from the decision of
high intensity on April 7, 1970 followed by other strong the Intermediate Appellate Court. Hence, these
earthquakes on April 9, and 12, 1970, caused further petitions.
damage to the property. The actual demolition was On May 11, 1978, the United Architects of the
undertaken by the buyer of the damaged building. Philippines, the Association of Civil Engineers, and the
(Record on Appeal, pp. 278-280; Ibid.) Philippine Institute of Architects filed with the Court a
After the protracted hearings, the Commissioner motion to intervene as amicus curiae. They proposed to
eventually submitted his report on September 25, 1970 present a position paper on the liability of architects
with the findings that while the damage sustained by when a building collapses and to submit likewise a
the PBA building was caused directly by the August 2, critical analysis with computations on the divergent
1968 earthquake whose magnitude was estimated at views on the design and plans as submitted by the
7.3 they were also caused by the defects in the plans experts procured by the parties. The motion having
and specifications prepared by the third-party been granted, the amicus curiae were granted a period
defendants’ architects, deviations from said plans and of 60 days within which to submit their position.
specifications by the defendant contractors and failure After the parties had all filed their comments, We
of the latter to observe the requisite workmanship in gave due course to the petitions in Our Resolution of
the construction of the building and of the contractors, July 21, 1978.
architects and even the owners to exercise the The position papers of the amicus curiae (submitted
requisite degree of supervision in the construction of on November 24, 1978) were duly noted.
subject building. The amicus curiae gave the opinion that the plans
All the parties registered their objections to and specifications of the Nakpils were not defective.
aforesaid findings which in turn were answered by the But the Commissioner, when asked by Us to comment,
Commissioner. reiterated his conclusion that the defects in the plans
The trial court agreed with the findings of the and specifications indeed existed.
Commissioner Using the same authorities availed of by the amicus
curiae such as the Manila Code (Ord. No. 4131) and
604
the 1966 Asep Code, the Commissioner added that
even if it can be proved that the defects in the
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED construction alone (and not in the plans and design)
caused the damage to the building, still the deficiency
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
in the original design and lack of specific provisions
against torsion in the original plans and the overload
except as to the holding that the owner is charged with on the ground floor columns (found by all the experts
full time supervision of the construction. The Court including the original designer) certainly contributed
sees no legal or contractual basis for such conclusion. to the damage which occurred. (Ibid, p. 174).
(Record on Appeal, pp. 309-328; Ibid.).
605
 the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality
furnished by him, or due to any violation of the terms of the
VOL. 144, OCTOBER 3, 1986 605
contract. If the engineer or architect supervises the
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals construction, he shall be solidarity liable with the contractor.
Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not
In their respective briefs petitioners, among others, imply waiver of any of the causes of action by reason of any
raised the following assignments of errors: Philippine defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Bar Association claimed that the measure of damages
should not be limited to P1,100,000.00 as estimated 606

cost of repairs or to the period of six (6) months for loss

of rentals while United Construction Co., Inc. and the 606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Nakpils claimed that it was an act of God that caused
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
the failure of the building which should exempt them
from responsibility and not the defective construction,
poor workmanship, deviations from plans and The action must be brought within ten years following the
specifications and other imperfections in the case of collapse of the building.”
United Construction Co., Inc. or the deficiencies in the
On the other hand, the general rule is that no person
design, plans and specifications prepared by
shall be responsible for events which could not be
petitioners in the case of the Nakpils. Both UCCI and
foreseen or which, though foreseen, were inevitable
the Nakpils object to the payment of the additional
(Article 1174, New Civil Code).
amount of P200,000.00 imposed by the Court of
An act of God has been defined as an accident, due
Appeals. UCCI also claimed that it should be
directly and exclusively to natural causes without
reimbursed the expenses of shoring the building in the
human intervention, which by no amount of foresight,
amount of P13,661.28 while the Nakpils opposed the
pains or care, reasonably to have been expected, could
payment of damages jointly and solidarity with UCCI.
have been prevented. (1 Corpus Juris 1174).
The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not an
There is no dispute that the earthquake of August 2,
act of God,—an unusually strong earthquake—which
1968 is a fortuitous event or an act of God.
caused the failure of the building, exempts from
To exempt the obligor from liability under Article
liability, parties who are otherwise liable because of
1174 of the Civil Code, for a breach of an obligation due
their negligence.
to an “act of God,” the following must concur: (a) the
The applicable law governing the rights and
cause of the breach of the obligation must be
liabilities of the parties herein is Article 1723 of the
independent of the will of the debtor; (b) the event
New Civil Code, which provides:
must be either unforseeable or unavoidable; (c) the
“Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the plans event must be such as to render it impossible for the
and specifications for a building is liable for damages if debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and
within fifteen years from the completion of the structure the (d) the debtor must be free from any participation in,
same should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and or aggravation of the injury to the creditor. (Vasquez v.
specifications, or due to the defects in the ground. The Court of Appeals, 138 SCRA 553; Estrada v.
contractor is likewise responsible for the damage if the Consolacion, 71 SCRA 423; Austria v. Court of
edifice falls within the same period on account of defects in Appeals, 39 SCRA 527; Republic of the Phil. v. Luzon
Stevedoring Corp., 21 SCRA 279; Lasam v. Smith, 45 Appellate Court. Defendant United Construction Co.,
Phil. 657). Inc. was found to have made substantial deviations
Thus, if upon the happening of a fortuitous event or from the plans and specifications, and to have failed to
an act of God, there concurs a corresponding fraud, observe the requisite workmanship in the construction
negligence, delay or violation or contravention in any as well as to exercise the requisite degree of
manner of the tenor of the obligation as provided for in supervision; while the third-party defendants were
Article 1170 of the Civil Code, which results in loss or found to have inadequacies or defects in the plans and
damage, the obligor cannot escape liability. specifications prepared by them. As correctly assessed
The principle embodied in the act of God doctrine by both courts, the defects in the construction and in
strictly requires that the act must be one occasioned the plans and specifications were the proximate causes
exclusively by the violence of nature and all human that rendered the PBA building unable to withstand
agencies are to be excluded from creating or entering the earthquake of August 2, 1968. For this reason the
into the cause of the mischief. When the effect, the defendant and third-party defendants cannot claim
cause of which is to be considered, is found to be in exemption from liability. (Decision, Court of Appeals,
part the result of the participation of man, whether it pp. 30-31).
be It is well settled that the findings of facts of the
Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and on
607
this court (cases cited in Tolentino vs. de Jesus, 56
SCRA 67; Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan, January 17, 1985,
VOL. 144, OCTOBER 3, 1986 607 134 SCRA 105, 121), unless (1) the conclusion is a
finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
conjectures; (2) the inference made is manifestly
mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the
from active intervention or neglect, or failure to act, judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the
the whole occurrence is thereby humanized, as it were, findings of fact are conflicting; (6) the Court of Appeals
and removed from the rules applicable to the acts of went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are
God. (1 Corpus Juris, pp. 1174-1175). contrary to the admis-
Thus it has been held that when the negligence of a
person concurs with an act of God in producing a loss, 608
such person is not exempt from liability by showing
that the immediate cause of the damage was the act of 608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
God. To be exempt from liability for loss because of an
act of God, he must be free from any previous Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
negligence or misconduct by which that loss or damage
may have been occasioned. (Fish & Elective Co. v. Phil. sions of both appellant and appellees (Ramos vs. Pepsi-
Motors, 55 Phil. 129; Tucker v. Milan, 49 O.G. 4379; Cola Bottling Co., February 8, 1967, 19 SCRA 289,
Limpangco & Sons v. Yangco Steamship Co., 34 Phil. 291-292; Roque vs. Buan, Oct. 31, 1967, 21 SCRA 648,
594, 604; Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 657). 651); (7) the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals
The negligence of the defendant and the third-party are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) said findings
defendants petitioners was established beyond dispute of facts are conclusions without citation of specific
both in the lower court and in the Intermediate evidence on which they are based; (9) the facts set
forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s main 609
and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents
(Garcia vs. CA, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 622; Alsua-
VOL. 144, OCTOBER 3, 1986 609
Bett vs. Court of Appeals, July 30, 1979, 92 SCRA 322,
366); (10) the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is
contradicted by evidence on record (Salazar vs. awarding in favor of PBA an additional sum of
Gutierrez, May 29, 1970, 33 SCRA 243, 247; Cited in P200,000.00 representing the damage suffered by the
G.R. No. 66497-98, Sacay v. Sandiganbayan, July 10, PBA building as a result of another earthquake that
1986). occurred on April 7, 1970 (L-47896, Vol. I, p. 92).
It is evident that the case at bar does not fall under The PBA in its brief insists that the proper award
any of the exceptions above-mentioned. On the should be P1,830,000.00 representing the total value of
contrary, the records show that the lower court spared the building (L-47896, PBA’s No. 1 Assignment of
no effort in arriving at the correct appreciation of facts Error, p. 19), while both the NAKPILS and UNITED
by the referral of technical issues to a Commissioner question the additional award of P200,000.00 in favor
chosen by the parties whose findings and conclusions of the PBA (L-47851, NAKPIL’s Brief as Petitioner, p.
remained convincingly unrebutted by the in- 6, UNITED’s Brief as Petitioner, p. 25). The PBA
tervenors/amicus curiae who were allowed to intervene further urges that the unrealized rental income
in the Supreme Court. awarded to it should not be limited to a period of one-
In any event, the relevant and logical observations half year but should be computed on a continuing basis
of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals at the rate of P178,671.76 a year until the judgment
that “while it is not possible to state with certainty for the principal amount shall have been satisfied (L-
that the building would not have collapsed were those 47896, PBA’s No. 11 Assignment of Errors, p. 19).
defects not present, the fact remains that several The collapse of the PBA building as a result of the
buildings in the same area withstood the earthquake August 2, 1968 earthquake was only partial and it is
to which the building of the plaintiff was similarly undisputed that the building could then still be
subjected,” cannot be ignored. repaired and restored to its tenantable condition. The
The next issue to be resolved is the amount of PBA, however, in view of its lack of needed funding,
damages to be awarded to the PBA for the partial was unable, thru no fault of its own, to have the
collapse (and eventual complete collapse) of its building repaired. UNITED, on the other hand, spent
building. P13,661.28 to shore up the building after the August 2,
The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the 1968 earthquake (L-47896, CA Decision, p. 46).
trial court based on the report of the Commissioner Because of the earthquake on April 7, 1970, the trial
that the total amount required to repair the PBA court after the needed consultations, authorized the
building and to restore it to tenantable condition was total demolition of the building (L-47896, Vol. 1, pp.
P900,000.00 inasmuch as it was not initially a total 53-54).
loss. However, while the trial court awarded the PBA There should be no question that the NAKPILS and
said amount as damages, plus unrealized rental UNITED are liable for the damage resulting from the
income for one-half year, the Court of Appeals modified partial and eventual collapse of the PBA building as a
the amount by result of the earthquakes.
 We quote with approval the following from the will be forced to conclude that under such a situation scores
erudite decision penned by Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez of buildings in the vicinity and in other parts of Manila
(now an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) while would have toppled down. Following the same line of
still an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals: reasoning, Nakpil and Sons alleges that the designs were
adequate in accordance with preAugust 2, 1968 knowledge
“There is no question that an earthquake and other forces of and appear inadequate only in the light of engineering
nature such as cyclones, drought, floods, lightning, and perils information acquired after the earthquake. If this were so,
of the sea are acts of God. It does not necessarily follow, hundreds of ancient buildings which survived the earthquake
however, that better than the two-year old PBA building must have been
designed and constructed by architects and contractors
610
whose knowledge and foresight were unexplainably
auspicious and prophetic. Fortunately, the facts on record
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED allow a more down to earth explanation of the collapse. The
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals failure of the PBA building, as a unique and distinct
construction with no reference or comparison to other
specific losses and suffering resulting from the occurrence of buildings, to weather the severe earthquake forces was
these natural force are also acts of God. We are not convinced traced to design deficiencies and defective construction,
on the basis of the evidence on record that from the factors which are neither mysterious nor esoteric. The
thousands of structures in Manila, God singled out the theological allusion of appellant United that God acts in
blameless PBA building in Intramuros and around six or mysterious ways His wonders to perform impresses us to be
seven other buildings in various parts of the city for collapse inappropriate. The evidence reveals defects and deficiencies
or severe damage and that God alone was responsible for the in design and construction. There is no mystery about these
damages and losses thus suffered. acts of negligence. The collapse of the PBA building was no
The record is replete with evidence of defects and wonder performed by God. It was a result of the
deficiencies in the designs and plans, defective construction, imperfections in the work of the architects and
poor workmanship, deviation from plans and specifications
611
and other imperfections. These deficiencies are attributable
to negligent men and not to a perfect God.
The act-of-God arguments of the defendants-appellants VOL. 144, OCTOBER 3, 1986 611
and third party defendants-appellants presented in their Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
briefs are premised on legal generalizations or speculations
and on theological fatalism both of which ignore the plain the people in the construction company. More relevant to our
facts. The lengthy discussion of United on ordinary mind is the lesson from the parable of the wise man in the
earthquakes and unusually strong earthquakes and on Sermon on the Mount, “which built his house upon a rock;
ordinary fortuitous events and extraordinary fortuitous and the rain descended and the floods came and the winds
events leads to its argument that the August 2, 1968 blew and beat upon that house; and it fell not; for it was
earthquake was of such an overwhelming and destructive founded upon a rock” and of the “foolish man which built his
character that by its own force and independent of the house upon the sand. And the rain descended and the floods
particular negligence alleged, the injury would have been came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it
produced. If we follow this line of speculative reasoning, we fell and great was the fall of it. (St. Matthew 7:24-27).” The
requirement that a building should withstand rains, floods, 612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
winds, earthquakes, and natural forces is precisely the
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
reason why we have professional experts like architects, and
engineers. Designs and constructions vary under varying
2. Sun-baffles on the two sides and in front of the
circumstances and conditions but the requirement to design
building;
and build well does not change.
The findings of the lower Court on the cause of the
a. Increase the inertia forces that move the building
collapse are more rational and accurate. Instead of laying the
laterally toward the Manila Fire Department.
blame solely on the motions and forces generated by the
earthquake, it also examined the ability of the PBA building, b. Create another stiffness-imbalance.
as designed and constructed, to withstand and successfully
3. The embedded 4" diameter cast iron downspout on all
weather those forces.
exterior columns reduces the cross-sectional area of
The evidence sufficiently supports a conclusion that the
each of the columns and the strength thereof.
negligence and fault of both United and Nakpil and Sons, not
a mysterious act of an inscrutable God, were responsible for 4. Two front corners, A7 and D7 columns were very
the damages. The Report of the Commissioner, Plaintiff’s much less reinforced.
Objections to the Report, Third Party Defendants’ Objections Physical Evidence After the Earthquake, Proving
to the Report, Defendants’ Objections to the Report, Inadequacy of design;
Commissioner’s Answer to the various Objections, Plaintiffs’ 1. Column A7 suffered the severest fracture and
Reply to the Commissioner’s Answer, Defendants’ Reply to maximum sagging. Also D7.
the Commissioner’s Answer, CounterReply to Defendants’ 2. There are more damages in the front part of the
Reply, and Third-Party Defendants’ Reply to the building than towards the rear, not only in columns
Commissioner’s Report not to mention the exhibits and the but also in slabs.
testimonies show that the main arguments raised on appeal
3. Building leaned and sagged more on the front part of
were already raised during the trial and fully considered by
the building.
the lower Court. A reiteration of these same arguments on
appeal fails to convince us that we should reverse or disturb 4. Floors showed maximum sagging on the sides and
the lower Court’s factual findings and its conclusions drawn toward the front corner parts of the building.
from the facts, among them: 5. There was a lateral displacement of the building of
about 8", Maximum sagging occurs at the column A7
“The Commissioner also found merit in the allegations of the where the floor is lower by 80 cm. than the highest
defendants as to the physical evidence before and after the slab level.
earthquake showing the inadequacy of design, to wit:
6. Slab at the corner column D7 sagged by 38 cm.”
“Physical evidence before the earthquake, providing (sic) inadequacy of
design; The Commissioner concluded that there were deficiencies or
defects in the design, plans and specifications of the PBA
1. Inadequate design was the cause of the failure of the building. building which involved appreciable risks with respect to the
accidental forces which may result from earthquake shocks.
612 He conceded, however, that the fact that those deficiencies or
defects may have arisen from an obsolete or not too
conservative code or even a code that does not require a aptly remarked that “engineering, although dealing in
design for earthquake forces mitigates in a large measure the mathematics, is not an exact science and that the present
responsibility or liability of the architect and engineer knowledge as to the nature of earthquakes and the behaviour
designer. of forces generated by them still leaves much to be desired; so
The Third-party defendants, who are the most concerned much so “that the experts of the different parties, who are all
with this portion of the Commissioner’s report, voiced engineers, cannot agree on what equation to use, as to what
opposition to the same on the grounds that (a) the finding is earthquake co-efficients are, on the codes to be used and even
based on a basic erroneous as to the type of structure that the PBA building (is) was” (p.
29, Memo, of third-party defendants before the
613 Commissioner).
The difficulty expected by the Court if this technical
VOL. 144, OCTOBER 3, 1986 613 matter were to be tried and inquired into by the Court itself,
coupled with the intrinsic nature of the questions involved
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
therein, constituted the reason for the reference of the said
conception as to the design concept of the building, to wit, issues to a Commissioner whose qualifications and
that the design is essentially that of a heavy rectangular box experience have eminently qualified him for the task, and
on stilts with shear wall at one end; (b) the finding that there whose competence had not been questioned by the parties
were defects and a deficiency in the design of the building until he submitted his report. Within the pardonable limit of
would at best be based on an approximation and, therefore, the Court’s ability to comprehend the meaning of the
rightly belonged to the realm of speculation, rather than of Commissioner’s report on this issue, and the objections
certainty and could very possibly be outright error; (c) the voiced to the same, the Court sees no compelling reasons to
Commissioner has failed to back up or support his finding disturb the findings of the Commissioner that there were
with extensive, complex and highly specialized computations defects and deficiencies in the design, plans
and analyzes which he himself emphasizes are necessary in 614
the determination of such a highly technical question; and (d)
the Commissioner has analyzed the design of the PBA
building not in the light of existing and available earthquake 614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
engineering knowledge at the time of the preparation of the Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
design, but in the light of recent and current standards.
The Commissioner answered the said objections alleging and specifications prepared by third-party defendants, and
that third-party defendants’ objections were based on that said defects and deficiencies involved appreciable risks
estimates or exhibits not presented during the hearing; that with respect to the accidental forces which may result from
the resort to engineering references posterior to the date of earthquake shocks.
the preparation of the plans was induced by the third-party
defendants themselves who submitted computations of the (2) (a) The deviations, if any, made by the defendants
third-party defendants are erroneous. from the plans and specifications, and how said
The issue presently considered is admittedly a technical deviations contributed to the damage sustained by
one of the highest degree. It involves questions not within the building.
the ordinary competence of the bench and the bar to resolve
by themselves. Counsel for the third-party defendants has
 (b) The alleged failure of defendants to observe the (11) Big cavity in core of Column 2A-4, second floor,
requisite quality of materials and workmanship in (12) Columns buckled at different planes. Columns
the construction of the building. buckled worst where there are no spirals or
These two issues, being interrelated with each other, where spirals are cut. Columns suffered worst
will be discussed together. displacement where the eccentricity of the
The findings of the Commissioner on these issues columnar reinforcement assembly is more
were as follows: acute.

“We now turn to the construction of the PBA Building and the b. Summary of alleged defects as reported by
alleged deficiencies or defects in the construction and violations or Engr. An-tonio Avecilla.Columns are first (or
deviations from the plans and specifications. All these may be ground) floor, unless otherwise stated.
summarized as follows:
(1) Column D4—Spacing of spiral is changed from
a. Summary of alleged defects as reported by Engineer Mario
2" to 5" on centers,
M. Bundalian.
(2) Column D5—No spiral up to a height of 22"
(1) Wrongful and defective placing of reinforcing bars. from the ground floor,
(2) Absence of effective and desirable integration of the 3 bars (3) Column D6—Spacing of spiral over 4½,
in the cluster. (4) Column D7—Lack of lateral ties,
(3) Oversize coarse aggregates: 1-1/4 to 2" were used. (5) Column C7—Absence of spiral to a height of
Specification requires no larger than 1 inch. 20" from the ground level, Spirals are at 2"
(4) Reinforcement assembly is not concentric with the column, from the exterior column face and 6" from the
eccentricity being 3" off when on one face the main bars are inner column face,
only 1½" from the surface. (6) Column B6—Lack of spiral on 2 feet below the
(5) Prevalence of honeycombs, floor beams,
(6) Contraband construction joints, (7) Column B5—Lack of spirals at a distance of 26"
(7) Absence, or omission, or over spacing of spiral hoops, below the beam,
(8) Deliberate severance of spirals into semi-circles in noted on (8) Column B7—Spirals not tied to vertical
Col. A5, ground floor, reinforcing bars, Spirals are uneven 2" to 4",
(9) Defective construction joints in Columns A3, C7, D7 and D4, (9) Column A3—Lack of lateral ties,
ground floor. (10) Column A4—Spirals cut off and welded to two
(10) Undergraduate concrete is evident, separate clustered vertical bars,
(11) Column A4—(second floor) Column is
615 completely hollow to a height of 30"
(12) Column A5—Spirals were cut from the floor
VOL. 144, OCTOBER 3, 1986 615 level to the bottom of the spandrel beam to a
height of 6 feet,
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
(13) Column A6—No spirals up to a height of 30"
above the ground floor level,
 (14) Column A7—Lack of lateral ties or spirals, As heretofore mentioned, details which insure ductility at
or near the connections between columns and girders are
616 desirable in earthquake-resistant design and construction.
The omission of spirals and ties or hoops at the bottom
and/or tops of columns contributed greatly to the loss of
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
earthquake-resistant strength. The plans and specifications
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals required that these spirals and ties be carried from the floor
level to the bottom reinforcement of the deeper beam (p. 1,
c. Summary of alleged defects as reported by the Specifications, p. 970, Reference 11). There were several
experts of the Third-Party defendants. clear evidences where this was not done especially in some of
Ground floor columns. the ground floor col-

617
(1) Column A4—Spirals are cut,
(2) Column A5—Spirals are cut,
VOL. 144, OCTOBER 3, 1986 617
(3) Column A6—At lower 18” spirals are absent,
(4) Column A7—Ties are too far apart, Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals

(5) Column B5—At upper fourth of column spirals are

umns which failed.
either absent or improperly spliced,
There were also unmistakable evidences that the spacings
(6) Column B6—At upper 2 feet spirals are absent, of the spirals and ties in the columns were in many cases
(7) Column B7—At upper fourth of column spirals greater than those called for in the plans and specifications
missing or improperly spliced. resulting again in loss of earthquake-resistant strength. The
(8) Column C7—Spirals are absent at lowest 18 “ assertion of the engineering experts for the defendants that
(9) Column D5—At lowest 2 feet spirals are absent, the improper spacings and the cutting of the spirals did not
result in loss of strength in the column cannot be maintained
(10) Column D6—Spirals are too far apart and apparently
and is certainly contrary to the general principles of column
improperly spliced,
design and construction. And even granting that there be no
(11) Column D7—Lateral ties are too far apart, spaced 16”
loss in strength at the yield point (an assumption which is
on centers.
very doubtful) the cutting or improper spacings of spirals will
certainly result in the loss of the plastic range or ductility in
There is merit in many of these allegations. The explanations
the column and it is precisely this plastic range or ductility
given by the engineering experts for the defendants are
which is desirable and needed for earthquake-resistant
either contrary to general principles of engineering design for
strength.
reinforced concrete or not applicable to the requirements for
There is no excuse for the cavity or hollow portion in the
ductility and strength of reinforced concrete in earthquake-
column A4, second floor, and although this column did not
resistant design and construction.
fail, this is certainly an evidence on the part of the contractor
We shall first classify and consider defects which may
of poor construction.
have appreciable bearing or relation to the earthquake-
The effect of eccentricities in the columns which were
resistant property of the building.
measured at about 2½ inches maximum may be
approximated in relation to column loads and column and
beam moments. The main effect of eccentricity is to change diminish the strength of the column. This belief together with the
the beam or girder span. The effect on the measured difficulty of slipping the spirals on the top of the column once the
eccentricity of 2½ inches, therefore, is to increase or diminish beam reinforcement is in place may be a sufficient motivation for
the column load by a maximum of about 1% and to increase the cutting of the spirals themselves. The defendants, therefore,
or diminish the column or beam movements by about a should be held responsible for the consequences arising from the
maximum of 2%. While these can certainly be absorbed loss of strength or ductility in column A5 which may have
within the factor of safety, they nevertheless diminish said contributed to the damages sustained by the building.
factor of safety. The lack of proper length of splicing of spirals was also proven in
The cutting of the spirals in column A5, ground floor is the the visible spirals of the columns where spalling of the concrete
subject of great contention between the parties and deserves cover had taken place. This lack of proper splicing contributed in a
special consideration. small measure to the loss of strength.
The proper placing of the main reinforcements and spirals The effects of all the other proven and visible defects although
in column A5, ground floor, is the responsibility of the minor can certainly be accumulated so that they can contribute to
general contractor which is the UCCI. The burden of proof, an appreciable loss in earthquake-resistant strength. The
therefore, that this cutting was done by others is upon the engineering experts for the defendants submitted an estimate on
defendants. Other than a strong allegation and assertion some of these defects in the amount of a few percent. If
that it is the plumber or his men who may have done the accumulated, therefore, including the effect of eccentricity in the
cutting (and this was flatly denied by the plumber) no column the loss in strength due to these minor defects may run to
conclusive proof was presented. The engineering experts for as much as ten percent.
the defendants asserted that they could have no motivation To recapitulate: the omission or lack of spirals and ties at the
for cutting the bar because they can simply replace the bottom and/or at the top of some of the ground floor columns
spirals by wrapping around a new contributed greatly to the collapse of the PBA building since it is at
these points where the greater part of the failure occurred. The
618 liability for the cutting of the spirals in column A5, ground floor, in
the considered opinion of the Commissioner rests on the shoulders
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED of the defendants and the loss of strength in this column
contributed to the damage which occurred.
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the proven defects,
deficiencies and violations of the plans and specifica-
set of spirals. This is not quite correct. There is evidence to show
that the pouring of concrete for columns was sometimes done
619
through the beam and girder reinforcements which were already in
place as in the case of column A4 second floor. If the reinforcement
for the girder and column is to subsequently wrap around the VOL. 144, OCTOBER 3, 1986 619
spirals, this would not do for the elasticity of steel would prevent Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
the making of tight column spirals and loose or improper spirals
would result. The proper way is to produce correct spirals down tions of the PBA building contributed to the damages which
from the top of the main column bars, a procedure which can not be resulted during the earthquake of August 2, 1968 and the vice of
done if either the beam or girder reinforcement is already in place. these defects and deficiencies is that they not only increase but also
The engineering experts for the defendants strongly assert and aggravate the weakness mentioned in the design of the structure. In
apparently believe that the cutting of the spirals did not materially other words, these defects and deficiencies not only tend to add but
also to multiply the effects of the shortcomings in the design of the 620
building. We may say, therefore, that the defects and deficiencies in
the construction contributed greatly to the damage which occurred.
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Since the execution and supervision of the construction work in
the hands of the contractor is direct and positive, the presence of Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals
existence of all the major defects and deficiencies noted and proven
manifests an element of negligence which may amount to
the Commissioner mentioned groundfloor columns B-6 and
imprudence in the construction work.” (pp. 42-49, Commissioner’s
B-5 where all the splices were less than 1-½ turns and were
Report).
not welded, resulting in some loss of strength which could be
critical near the ends of the columns. He answered the
As the parties most directly concerned with this portion of supposition of the defendants that the spirals and the ties
the Commissioner’s report, the defendants voiced their must have been looted, by calling attention to the fact that
objections to the same on the grounds that the Commissioner the missing spirals and ties were only in two out of the 25
should have specified the defects found by him to be columns, which rendered said supposition to be improbable.
“meritorious”; that the Commissioner failed to indicate the The Commissioner conceded that the hollow in column A-
number of cases where the spirals and ties were not carried 4, second floor, did not aggravate or contribute to the
from the floor level to the bottom reinforcement of the deeper damage, but aver-red that it is “evidence of poor
beam, or where the spacing of the spirals and ties in the construction.” On the claim that the eccentricity could be
columns were greater than that called for in the absorbed within the factor of safety, the Commissioner
specifications; that the hollow in column A-4, second floor, answered that, while the same may be true, it also
the eccentricities in the columns, the lack of proper length of contributed to or aggravated the damage suffered by the
splicing of spirals, and the cut in the spirals in column A-5, building.
ground floor, did not aggravate or contribute to the damage The objection regarding the cutting of the spirals in
suffered by the building; that the defects in the construction Column A-5, groundfloor, was answered by the
were within the tolerable margin of safety; and that the Commissioner by reiterating the observation in his report
cutting of the spirals in column A-5, ground floor, was done that irrespective of who did the cutting of the spirals, the
by the plumber or his men, and not by the defendants. defendants should be held liable for the same as the general
Answering the said objections, the Commissioner stated contractor of the building. The Commissioner further stated
that, since many of the defects were minor only the totality of that the loss of strength of the cut spirals and inelastic
the defects was considered. As regards the objection as to deflections of the supposed lattice work defeated the purpose
failure to state the number of cases where the spirals and of the spiral containment in the column and resulted in the
ties were not carried from the floor level to the bottom loss of strength, as evidenced by the actual failure of this
reinforcement, the Commissioner specified groundfloor column.
columns B-6 and C-5, the first one without spirals for 03 Again, the Court concurs in the findings of the
inches at the top, and in the latter, there were no spirals for Commissioner on these issues and fails to find any sufficient
10 inches at the bottom. The Commissioner likewise specified cause to disregard or modify the same. As found by the
the first storey columns where the spacings were greater Commissioner, the “deviations made by the defendants from
than that called for in the specifications to be columns B-5, the plans and specifications caused indirectly the damage
B-6, C-7, C-6, C-5, D-5 and B-7. The objection to the failure of sustained and that those deviations not only added but also
the Commissioner to specify the number of columns where aggravated the damage caused by the defects in the plans
there was lack of proper length of splicing of spirals,
and specifications prepared by third-party defendants.” loss of the building (including interest charges and lost
(Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 128-142) rantals) and an additional ONE HUNDRED
THOUSAND (P100,000.00) Pesos as and for attorney’s
The afore-mentioned facts clearly indicate the wanton fees, the total sum being payable upon the finality of
negligence of both the defendant and the third-party this decision. Upon failure to pay on such finality,
defendants in effecting the plans, designs, twelve (12%) per cent interest per annum shall be
specifications, and construction of the PBA building imposed upon afore-mentioned amounts from finality
and We hold such negligence as equivalent to bad faith until paid. Solidary costs against the defendant and
in the performance of their respective tasks. third-party defendants (except Roman Ozaeta).
Relative thereto, the ruling of the Supreme Court in SO ORDERED.
Tucker v. Milan (49 O.G. 4379, 4380) which may be in
point in this case, reads:      Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Alampay and Cruz,
JJ., concur.
“One who negligently creates a dangerous condition cannot
Decision modified.
621

——o0o——
VOL. 144, OCTOBER 3, 1986 621
622
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. Court of Appeals

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 © Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
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