JUAN F. NAKPIL & SONS, and JUAN F. NAKPIL vs.

THE COURT OF APPEALS,

UNITED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., JUAN J. CARLOS, and the PHILIPPINE
BAR ASSOCIATION
G.R. No. L-47851
October 3, 1986

FACTS: Private respondents Philippine Bar Association (PBA) a non-profit organization

formed under the corporation law decided to put up a building in Intramuros, Manila. Hired to
plan the specifications of the building were Juan Nakpil & Sons, while United Construction was
hired to construct it. The proposal was approved by the Board of Directors and signed by the
President, Ramon Ozaeta. The building was completed in 1966. In 1968, there was an unusually
strong earthquake which caused the building heavy damage, which led the building to tilt
forward, leading the tenants to vacate the premises. United Construction took remedial measures
to sustain the building. PBA filed a suit for damages against United Construction, but United
Construction subsequently filed a suit against Nakpil and Sons, alleging defects in the plans and
specifications.Technical Issues in the case were referred to Mr. Hizon, as a court appointed
Commissioner. PBA moved for the demolition of the building, but was opposed. PBA eventually
paid for the demolition after the building suffered more damages in 1970 due to previous
earthquakes. The Commissioner found that there were deviations in the specifications and plans,
as well as defects in the construction of the building.
ISSUE: Whether or not an act of God (fortuitous event) exempts from liability parties who
would otherwise be due to negligence?
HELD: Art. 1174 of the NCC, states that no person shall be responsible for events, which could
not be foreseen. But to be exempt from liability due to an act of God, the following must occur:
1) cause of breach must be independent of the will of the debtor 2) event must be unforeseeable
or unavoidable 3) event must be such that it would render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill
the obligation 4) debtor must be free from any participation or aggravation of the industry to the
creditor. Although the general rule for fortuitous events stated in Article 1174 of the Civil Code
exempts liability when there is an Act of God, thus if in the concurrence of such event there be
fraud, negligence, delay in the performance of the obligation, the obligor cannot escape liability
therefore there can be an action for recovery of damages. 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.