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

L-47851, April 15, 1988

FACTS:
Philippine Bar Association (PBA) decided to construct an office building on its
840square meters lot located at the corner of Aduana and Arzobispo Streets,
Inramuros, Manila. For the plans, specifications and design, PBA contracted the
services of Juan F. Nakpil & sons and Juan F. Nakpil (Nakpils). For the construction of
the building, PBA contracted the services of United Construction Company (UCCI) on
an administration basis. The building was completed in June 1966. On Aug. 2 a
strong earthquake hit Manila and the building in question sustained major damage.
The front columns of the building buckled causing the building to tilt forward
dangerously. As a temporary remedial measure the building was shored up by UCCI
at the expense of 13,661.28. On Nov. 29, 1968 PBA commenced action for recovery
damages against UCCI. UCCI then filed a complaint against Nakpils alleging in
essence that the collapse of the building was due to the defects of architect plans.
Upon the investigation of the Commissioner it was found that the damage of the
buildings were caused by the defect in the plans and specifications prepared by the
Nakpils and UCCI deviations from said plans and specifications and its failure to
observe the requisite workmanship in the construction and PBAs failure to
supervise the construction of the building. The lower court agreed with the findings
of the Commissioner and ordered UCCI to pay. Court of Appeals modified the
decision. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not UCCI as wells as Nakpils are liable even if the damage was due to
an Act of God.
HELD: Yes. The Court ruled in the affirmative. The Civil Code provides that when
there is a fortuitous event the debtor is exempt from liability however there is an
exception. If fraud, negligence, delay in the event on the part of the party then the
party liable cannot be exempted therefore PBA can recover damages from UCCI.
The negligence of the defendant was shown when and proved that there was an
alteration of the plans and specification that had been so stipulated among them.
Therefore, therefore there should be no question that NAKPIL and UNITED are liable
for damages because of the collapse of the building.
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.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, UNITED's motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED; the

NAKPILS" motion for leave to file second motion for reconsideration is also DENIED,
the latters" first motion on the same grounds having been already denied with
finality in the resolution of April 3, 1987. Needless to say, the Motion to Refer this
case to the Court En Banc is DENIED, in view of all the things stated in this
Resolution.SO ORDERED.