Juan F.

Nakpil & Sons vs Court of Appeals

GR No. L-47851, October 3, 1986
Paras, J.:

Facts:

Philippine Bar Association, a civic non-profit association, decided to construct a building in Intramuros,
Manila. They hired the services of Juan F. Nakpil & Sons for the specifications of the plan and the United
Construction, Inc. for its construction.

In August 2, 1968, an unusually strong earthquake hit Manila causing the building to sustain major
damage. The tenants vacated the building in view of its precarious condition.

PBA then filed a suit for damages against United Construction. Subsequently, United Construction filed a
suit against Nakpil and Sons for the defects in the specifications and planning of the building.

The technical issues were then referred to Mr. Hizon, a court appointed Commissioner. The
Commissioner found that there were deviations and specifications and plans and also in the
construction of the building.

Issue:

Whether or not an act of God – an unusually strong earthquake – which caused the failure of the
building, exempts Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and United Construction from liability.

Held:

Yes, they are still liable. Article 1174 of New Civil Code provides that “no person shall be responsible for
events which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen, were inevitable”.

An Act of God has been defined as an accident, due directly and exclusively to natural causes without
human intervention, which by no amount of foresight, pains or care, reasonably to have been expected
could have been prevented. Undisputedly, the earthquake was a fortuitous even or an act of God.
However, to exempt the obligor from liability under Article 1174 (Fortuitous Event), the following must
concur:

a. cause of breach must be independent of the will of the debtor

b. event must be unforeseeable or unavoidable
c. event must be such that it would render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill the obligation
d. debtor must be free from any participation or aggravation of the industry to the creditor.

In the case at bar, the negligence of Nakpil & Sons and United Construction were established beyond
dispute both in the lower court and in the Intermediate Apellate Court. United Construction Co., Inc.
was found to have made substantial deviations from the plans and specifications and have failed to
observe the required workmanship in the construction as well as to exercise the requisite degree of
supervision; Nakpil & Sons were found to have inadequacies or defects in the plans and specifications
prepared by them.

Moreover, the trial court and the Court of Appeals made relevant and logical observation that “while it
is not possible to state with certainty that the building would not have collapsed were those defects not
present, the fact remains that several buildings in the same area withstood the earthquake to which the
building of PBA was similarly subjected”.

Therefore, Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and United Construction, Co., Inc cannot claim exemption from liability.