G.R. No. L-47851, L-47863, L-47896. October 3, 1986.
JUAN F. NAKPIL & SONS, et al., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, UNITED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., et al., respondents.

FACTS

The Philippine Bar Association (PBA) engaged United Construction Co., Inc. (UCCI) to construct its building in Intramuros, Manila, on an “administration” basis, with plans and specifications prepared by the architectural firm Juan F. Nakpil & Sons. The building was completed in June 1966. On August 2, 1968, a strong earthquake struck Manila, causing major damage to the building, including the buckling of its front columns, rendering it dangerous and uninhabitable. PBA filed a complaint for damages against UCCI and its president, Juan J. Carlos, alleging defects in construction and failure to follow plans. UCCI, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against the Nakpil architects, contending the collapse was due to defects in the plans and specifications.
The trial court found both the contractor and the architects jointly and severally liable, ordering them to pay PBA the sum of P989,335.68. The Court of Appeals modified this decision by adding an award of P200,000.00 to PBA. Multiple petitions for review were filed before the Supreme Court, with the Nakpils and UCCI seeking exoneration, and PBA seeking a much larger award for damages, including the building’s total loss and exemplary damages.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the contractor (UCCI) and the architects (Nakpil & Sons) are solidarily liable for damages arising from the partial collapse of the PBA building due to the earthquake, given findings of negligence in both the construction and the design.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of solidary liability but significantly increased the award. The Court held that the collapse was not due to a force majeure or a purely fortuitous event. The earthquake was merely the proximate cause; the efficient and intervening cause was the collective negligence of both the contractor and the architects. The evidence established that UCCI deviated from the plans by cutting column spirals, which critically reduced the building’s structural integrity. Concurrently, the Nakpil architects were negligent in preparing defective and inadequate plans and specifications that failed to account for necessary seismic forces. This joint negligence made the building unable to withstand an earthquake of predictable intensity.
The legal logic is grounded in Articles 1723 and 2199 of the Civil Code. Article 1723 establishes the solidary liability of an architect or engineer who supervises construction if the edifice collapses due to defects in plans or specifications. The Court extended this principle to hold both the supervising architects and the general contractor solidarily liable when their concurrent negligence—defective design and faulty execution—combines to cause the damage. The earthquake did not exonerate them because their negligence created the dangerous condition that made the damage a natural and probable consequence of the seismic event. Consequently, the Court modified the appellate decision and imposed solidary indemnity of P5,000,000.00 for all damages and P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees.