G.R. No. 170596 November 28, 2008
NGO SIN SING and TICIA DY NGO, petitioners, vs. LI SENG GIAP & SONS, INC., and CONTECH CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner spouses Ngo Sin Sing and Ticia Dy Ngo owned a lot in Binondo. In 1978, they contracted Contech Construction Technology Development Corporation (Contech) as the General Contractor to construct a 5-storey building (NSS Building) on their lot. Adjacent to their lot is a building owned by respondent Li Seng Giap & Sons, Inc. (LSG Building). During the excavation and construction of the NSS Building, the LSG Building sustained damages such as cracks, tilted floors, and distorted window frames, which the respondent attributed to the excavation done close to the common boundary. Consultants hired by the respondent concluded that the structural failure resulted from differential settlement caused by the excavation and recommended complete demolition and reconstruction. The respondent demanded that the petitioners rebuild or pay the cost, which was refused. The respondent filed a complaint for sum of money against the petitioners and Contech. The trial court found both defendants negligent but also found the respondent contributorily negligent for adding two floors to its building without proper foundation, thus ordering the defendants to jointly and severally pay only half of the reconstruction cost. Both the respondent and the petitioners appealed. The Court of Appeals modified the decision, holding the petitioners and Contech solidarily liable for the full reconstruction cost, deleting the finding of contributory negligence, and awarding attorney’s fees. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the respondent was guilty of contributory negligence; (2) whether the petitioners were jointly and severally liable with Contech for the damages; and (3) the propriety of the award of attorney’s fees.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. It SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATED the decision of the Regional Trial Court with modification.
The Court held that the trial court’s factual findings, which differed from the appellate court’s, were more conformable to the evidence. It found that the LSG Building, originally a 2-storey structure, had two additional floors added in 1966 without the corresponding increase in foundation support, making it inherently defective and unable to withstand ordinary soil movement. The Court agreed with the trial court’s finding of contributory negligence on the part of the respondent, warranting a reduction of the award by half.
On the issue of solidary liability, the Court ruled that the petitioners, as property owners, were not negligent. Their liability, if any, was only subsidiary under Article 1723 of the Civil Code, which applies when the employer (petitioners) is not at fault. Since the trial court found the contractor Contech solely negligent, the petitioners could not be held solidarily liable. The Court modified the trial court’s decision to hold Contech alone liable for the amount of P4,010,843.50.
Finally, the Court deleted the award of attorney’s fees for lack of basis.