Consolidated Case Nakpil & Sons et. al. vs.

Court of Appeals
October 3, 1986 16 SC!A 33" #onented$ %ustice #aras Facts: In the RTC of Manila, PBA filed a complaint for damages and thus was appealed to the CA where judgment was modified as what the RTC rendered in fa or of the plaintiff! PBA constructed a "uilding where"# the construction was underta$en "# %nited Construction Inc, &%CI'! Appro ed "# the president of PBA, the plans and specification were prepared "# (a$pil ) *ons! August +, ,-./, earth0ua$e hit Manila and thus damaging properties where the "uilding of PBA was one of which! (o em"er +- of that same #ear, plaintiff PBA filed suit for reco er# of damages against the %CI! The %CI in turned filed suit against (a$pil ) *ons, "# which in March 1, ,-.- filed their written stipulation! In the RTC, technical issues were su"mitted to Commissioner 2i3on and as for other issues the Court resol ed! Commissioner sustained that the "uilding was caused directl# "# the earth0ua$e and maintained that the specification were not followed! Issue&*C issue': 4hether or not an Act of 5od6fortuitous e ent, e7empts lia"ilit# from parties who are otherwise lia"le "ecause of their negligence8 2eld: Although the general rule for fortuitous e ents stated in Article ,,9: of the Ci il Code e7empts lia"ilit# when there is an Act of 5od, thus if in the concurrence of such e ent there "e fraud, negligence, dela# in the performance of the o"ligation, the o"ligor cannot escape lia"ilit# therefore there can "e an action for reco er# of damages! The negligence of the defendant was shown when and pro ed that there was an alteration of the plans and specification that had "een so stipulated among them! Therefore, therefore there should "e no 0uestion that (A;PI< and %(IT=> are lia"le for damages "ecause of the collapse of the "uilding!