October 3, 1986
160 SCRA 334
Ponented: Justice
Paras
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 favor of the plaintiff. PBA constructed a building whereby the
construction was undertaken by United Construction Inc, (UCI). Approved by the
president of PBA, the plans and specification were prepared by Nakpil &
Sons. August 2, 1968, earthquake hit Manila and thus damaging properties where
the building of PBA was one of which. November 29 of that same year, plaintiff
PBA filed suit for recovery of damages against the UCI. The UCI in turned filed
suit against Nakpil & Sons, by which in March 3, 1969 filed their written
stipulation. In the RTC, technical issues were submitted to Commissioner Hizon
and as for other issues the Court resolved. Commissioner sustained that the
building was caused directly by the earthquake and maintained that the
specification were not followed.
Issue(SC issue): Whether or not an Act of God-fortuitous
event, exempts liability from parties who are otherwise liable because of their
negligence?
Held: Although the general rule for fortuitous events
stated in Article 1174 of the Civil Code exempts liability when there is an Act
of God, thus if in the concurrence of such event there be fraud, negligence,
delay in the performance of the obligation, the obligor cannot escape liability
therefore there can be an action for recovery of damages. The negligence of the
defendant was shown when and proved that there was an alteration of the plans
and specification that had been so stipulated among them. Therefore, therefore
there should be no question that NAKPIL and UNITED are liable for damages
because of the collapse of the building.
No comments:
Post a Comment