Case Digest (G.R. No. L-47851)
Facts:
Juan F. Nakpil & Sons, and Juan F. Nakpil, petitioners, vs. The Court of Appeals, United Construction Company, Inc., Juan J. Carlos, and the Philippine Bar Association, respondents, G.R. Nos. L-47851, L-47863, L-47896, October 03, 1986, Supreme Court Second Division, Paras, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose from the construction and partial collapse of the Philippine Bar Association (PBA) office building on its lot in Intramuros, Manila. The PBA engaged United Construction Company, Inc. (UCCI) to build the structure on an "administration" basis, with the plans and specifications prepared by Juan F. Nakpil & Sons (the Nakpils). Roman Ozaeta signed for the PBA and was later joined as a third‑party defendant. The building was completed in June 1966.
On August 2, 1968 a severe earthquake struck Manila and the PBA building suffered major damage (columns buckled; building tilted). UCCI shored up the structure at its expense (P13,661.28). On November 29, 1968 the PBA sued UCCI and Juan J. Carlos (UCCI’s president) for damages, and the defendants filed a third‑party complaint against the Nakpils (alleging defects in plans/specifications). The PBA and the Nakpils executed a stipulation (March 3, 1969) permitting judgment against the Nakpils if the court found the contractors free of liability.
At pretrial (March 7, 1969) the court referred highly technical issues to Commissioner Andres O. Hizon: causation (design defects, construction deviations, workmanship, supervision, act of God), apportionment, and whether the building was a total loss or reparable and the cost of restoration. Nontechnical issues were tried by the court. The Commissioner conducted hearings and, on September 25, 1970, reported that although the August 2, 1968 earthquake was the direct cause, defects in plans and specifications and deviations/poor workmanship by the contractor (and insufficient supervision) materially contributed to the damage.
The trial court adopted the Commissioner’s findings except that it would not charge the owner with full‑time supervision; it rendered judgment on September 21, 1971 (Civil Case No. 74958). The Court of Appeals on November 28, 1977 modified that judgment by awarding an additional P200,000 to the PBA to cover damage from a later earthquake (April 7, 1970) and affirmed the remainder. Petitioners (UCCI, the Nakpils, Juan J. Carlos) sought reversal before the Supreme Court by petitions for review on certiorari; the PBA sought further relief (including recovery of full building value and additional damages). The cases were consolidated by this Court’s May 10, 1978 resolution; the United Architects of the...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the August 2, 1968 earthquake (an act of God) exempt the contractor and the architects from liability for the collapse of the PBA building?
- If not, what damages and liabilities should be imposed on the contractor and the architects (including whether the additional P200,000 award by the Court of Appeals and the measure of damages clai...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)