Scribd
Upload
266 views1 page

Nakpil Vs CA

This case involved the collapse of a building owned by the Philippine Bar Association after an earthquake in 1968. The Philippine Bar Association sued the construction company, United Construction Incorporation, for damages due to negligence in construction. United Construction Incorporation then sued the architects, Juan F. Nakpil & Sons, alleging flawed designs caused the damage. The court found both the construction company and architects liable. Deviations from the architectural plans by the construction company and defects in those plans, along with lack of proper workmanship, were proximate causes of the damage. An act of God such as an earthquake does not exempt parties from liability if their own negligence also contributed to the loss or damage. The court ruled the liability of the construction company

Uploaded by

Aziel Marie C. Guzman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
266 views1 page

Nakpil Vs CA

This case involved the collapse of a building owned by the Philippine Bar Association after an earthquake in 1968. The Philippine Bar Association sued the construction company, United Construction Incorporation, for damages due to negligence in construction. United Construction Incorporation then sued the architects, Juan F. Nakpil & Sons, alleging flawed designs caused the damage. The court found both the construction company and architects liable. Deviations from the architectural plans by the construction company and defects in those plans, along with lack of proper workmanship, were proximate causes of the damage. An act of God such as an earthquake does not exempt parties from liability if their own negligence also contributed to the loss or damage. The court ruled the liability of the construction company

Uploaded by

Aziel Marie C. Guzman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. CA et. al.

G.R. No. L-47851


October 3, 1986
Facts:
The construction of the Philippine Bar Associations (PBA) office building on its 840 square
meters lot located at Intamuros, Manila was undertaken by United Construction Incorporation (UCI). The
plans and specifications for the building were prepared by a third party, Juan F. Nakpil & Sons. The
building was completed in June, 1966 . Unfortunately, a strong earthquake hit Manila in August of 1968
and the building in question sustained major damage. The front columns of the building buckled, causing
the building to tilt forward dangerously. Tenants vacated the building and the building was shored up by
United Construction, Inc. as a temporary remedial measure. PBA instituted a case against the construction
company for damages due to its negligence regarding the construction of the said building thru its failure
to follow the designs coming from Juan F. Nakpil & Sons. UCI then filed a complaint against the
architects alleging that it was the designs that were flawed and caused the buildings damage. Juan F.
Nakpil & Sons thereafter alleged that it was UCI who deviated from the plans which caused the damage
to the building. Technical issues of the case were referred to a Commissioner who submitted a report
finding that there were defects in the plans and specifications prepared by the architects, and that there
were deviations from said plans and specifications together with the failure of UCI to observe the
requisite workmanship in the construction of the building caused the damage.
Issue: Whether or not an act of God, an unusually strong earthquake, which caused the failure of the
building, exempts from liability, parties who are otherwise liable because of their negligence.
Held:
No. They are not exempt from criminal liability. To exempt the obligor from liability under Art.
1174 of the Civil Code, for a breach of an obligation due to an act of God, the following must concur:
(a) the cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor; (b) the event
must be unforeseeable or unavoidable; (c) the event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor
to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner, and (d) the debtor must be free from any participation in, or
aggravation of the injury to the creditor. Thus, if upon happening of a fortuitous event or an act of God,
there concurs a corresponding fraud, negligence, delay or violation or contravention in any manner of the
tenor of the obligation as provided in Art. 1170, which results in loss or damage, the obligor cannot
escape liability. To be exempted, he must be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by which
that loss or damage may have been occasioned.
The report of the commissioner established that the defects that occurred to the building could be
attributed to the act of man specifically that of the architect and the contractor. This was because of the
fact that UCI deviated from the plans submitted by the architects and their failure to observe the required
workmanship in constructing the building as well as the lack of supervision. Nakpil & Sons are also liable
for the inadequacies and defect in the architectural plan and specifications. These circumstances were the
proximate causes of the damages the building incurred. As such, the liability of the contractor and the
architect in the collapse of the building is solidary. Costs are to be paid by the defendants amounting to 5
million plus 100,000 for attorneys fee.

You might also like