Title
Nakpil vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-47851
Decision Date
Apr 15, 1988
PBA building collapsed post-earthquake due to design and construction defects. SC held architects and builders solidarily liable for P5M damages, citing negligence equivalent to bad faith.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-7777)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

In this case, the Philippine Bar Association (PBA) undertook the construction of an office building on its 840-square-meter lot in Intramuros, Manila. For the design, PBA contracted Juan F. Nakpil & Sons and Juan F. Nakpil (collectively, “NAKPILS”), and for the construction itself, it engaged United Construction Company, Inc. (“UNITED”) on an administration basis. The building was completed in June 1966. However, on August 2, 1968, a strong earthquake caused major damage, notably buckling the front columns and tilting the structure dangerously. As an immediate remedial measure, the building was shored up at PBA’s expense.

Subsequently, further earthquakes in April 1970 deepened the damage, ultimately leading to the building’s demolition (authorized by the trial court on April 30, 1970) at PBA’s cost, though the demolition was carried out by its buyer. PBA initiated an action for recovery of damages against UNITED and its president, Juan J. Carlos, alleging that defects in the construction were primarily responsible for the collapse. Consequently, UNITED filed a third-party complaint against the NAKPILS, arguing that defects in the architectural plans and design contributed to the damage. The case went through a series of hearings (including referral of technical issues to a court-appointed commissioner, Engineer Andres O. Hizon) resulting in findings that the damage was a mixed consequence of the August 1968 earthquake, defective design and construction, deviations from the plans, and a lack of adequate supervision by PBA. These findings were adopted by the trial court and later modified by the Court of Appeals. Multiple motions for reconsideration were filed by UNITED and the NAKPILS with subsequent rulings denying these motions, leading to the final decision by the Supreme Court on October 3, 1986, and motions for reconsideration thereafter.

Issues:

  • Whether the appellants’ contention that the building did not completely “collapse” (in the strict sense) negates the applicability of Article 1723 of the Civil Code on solidary indemnity.
  • Whether PBA, as the owner, had a legal duty to provide full-time and active supervision of the construction, and if its alleged failure in this regard should render it partially liable for damages.
  • How damages should be apportioned among the parties in view of the Commissioner’s findings regarding the defects in design, construction, and application of remedial measures.
  • Whether the finding of bad faith against the defendants (UNITED and the NAKPILS) is justified given the evidence of negligence.
  • The appropriateness of the increased award of damages (from approximately P1.19 million to P5 million) and the award for attorney’s fees.
  • Whether the imposition of an interest rate of 12% per annum on the monetary award contravenes existing laws, particularly considering its basis in Central Bank Circular No. 416 and related provisions.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.