Case Title: Nakpil vs.

CA (April 15, 1988) GR numbers: L-47851, L-47863, L-47896 Ponente: Paras, J FACTS: Philippine BarAssociation (PBA) decided to construct an office building on its 840 square 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 failuire 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 hability 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.