1

Juan Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals

144SCRA597(1986)

CASE DIGEST

FACTS:

Philippine Bar Association (PBA) decided to construct an office

building. To this end, PBA contracted the services Juan F. Nakpil & Sons
and Juan F. Nakpil (Nakpils). For the plans, specifications and design, and
the United Construction Company, Inc. (UNITED) for the construction of
the building. The building was completed in construction. However, after
an unusually strong earthquake hit Manila, the building in question
sustained major damage.

PBA sought to recovery of damages against UNITED claiming that

the collapse of the building was caused by defects in the construction.
UNITED, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against the Nakpils, alleging
that the collapse of the building was due to the defects in the architects"
plans, specifications and design. 

The case was referred to the Commissioner and he reported that

the damage sustained by the building was caused directly by the
earthquake. However, it was also found out by the Commissioner that the
damage to the building was also caused by the defects in the plans and
specifications prepared by the Nakpils UNITED’s deviations from said plans
and specifications and its failure to observe the workmanship in the
construction of the building; and failure of PBA to exercise supervision in
the construction of the building. For its part, Nakpils countered that an act
of God caused the failure of the building which should exempt them from
responsibility. 

ISSUE: 

Whether or not United and Nakpil are exempt from liability on the ground
of fortuitous event or act of God.

RULING: 

Yes.

Article 1174 of the New Civil Code provides the requisites for the
obligor to be exempt from liability 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; 
 2

(b) the event must be either 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. it has been held that when
the negligence of a person concurs with an act of God in producing
a loss, such person is not exempt from liability by showing that the
immediate cause of the damage was the act of God. 

To be exempt from liability for loss because of an act of God, the

obligor must be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by which
that loss or damage may have been occasioned. 

In this case, both United and Nakpil were negligent in the plans,
designs, specifications, and construction of the PBA building is equivalent
to bad faith in the performance of their respective tasks. As shown in the
report by the Commissioner, United have made substantial deviations
from the plans and specifications and failed to observe the workmanship
in the construction as well as to exercise supervision in the construction.
For the Nakpils, there were inadequacies or defects in the plans and
specifications prepared by them. In sum, the case at bar does not fall
under any of the exceptions under Article 1174 of the New Civil Code.