The Abogados De Campanilla Inc. (“ACI”) decided to construct an office in a lot situated in the heart of old Manila. The construction was undertaken by the UCI Inc.
The proposal was approved by ACI’s board of directors and signed by its president. The plans and specifications for the building were prepared by JFN & Sons. Soon, the building stood with all its majestic glory.
The dawn of the new morning was awakened by an unusual rumblings from below.
Manila shook violently as the earth’s core grumbled. Its environs and ACI’s swayed and the building in question sustained major damage. The front columns of the building buckled, causing the building to tilt forward dangerously. The tenants vacated the building in view of its precarious condition.
ACI sued UCI, its president and general manager for damages arising from the partial collapse of the building.
It alleged that the collapse of the building was caused by defects in the construction, the failure of the contractors to follow plans and specifications and violations by the defendants of the terms of the contract.
UCI, its president and general manager, in turn, filed a third party complaint against the architects who prepared the plans and specifications, alleging in essence that the collapse of the building was due to the defects in the said plans and specifications.
The court-appointed commissioner submitted his report.
He said that that while the damage sustained by the building was caused directly by the 7.3 magnitude earthquake, they were also caused by: (a) the defects in the plans and specifications prepared by the third-party defendants’ architects; (b) deviations from said plans and specifications by the defendant contractors; and (c) failure of the latter to observe the requisite workmanship in the construction of the building and of the contractors, architects and even the owners to exercise the requisite degree of supervision in the construction of subject building.
Q: What is the law governing the rights and liabilities of the parties in case of damage to the building?
A: Art. 1723 of the New Civil Code provides that the engineer or architect who drew up the plans and specifications for a building is liable for damages if within 15 years from the completion of the structure the same should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications, or due to the defects in the ground.
The contractor is likewise responsible for the damage if the edifice fags within the same period on account of defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by him, or due to any violation of the terms of the contract. If the engineer or architect supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the contractor.
Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver of any of the causes of action by reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The action must be brought within 10 years following the collapse of the building.
Q: What will exempt the engineer, architect and the contractor from liability?
A: In order that they be exempted 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; (b) the event must be either unforseeable 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.
Q: What is an act of God?
A: 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.
Q: Will the engineer, architect and the contractor still be exempt from liability if, upon the happening of a fortuitous event or an act of God, they were likewise found to have committed fraud in the performance of their duties?
A: No, they will no longer be exempted. The principle embodied in the act of God doctrine strictly requires that the act must be one occasioned exclusively by the violence of nature and all human agencies are to be excluded from creating or entering into the cause of the mischief.
When the effect, the cause of which is to be considered, is found to be in part the result of the participation of man, whether it be from active intervention or neglect, or failure to act, the whole occurrence is thereby humanized, as it were, and removed from the rules applicable to the acts of God.
Q: What is the moral of the story?
A: 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. (Source: Juan F. Nakpil & Sons vs. CA, G.R. No. L-47851 October 3, 1986)
Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis is currently the Dean for the Lyceum of the Philippines University; president of the Philippines Association of Law Schools; and Senior Partner, Gatchalian Castro & Mawis Law Office