Scribd
Upload
243 views1 page

Juan Nakpil & Sons Vs CA 144 SCRA 597 (1986)

The Philippine Bar Association hired Juan Nakpil & Sons to design and oversee construction of an office building. After completion, an earthquake caused the building to partially collapse and be damaged, while other buildings nearby withstood the tremors. The court found Juan Nakpil & Sons liable for damages because their plans and specifications contained defects and deviations from standards, and the contractor failed to follow the plans properly. Even though an earthquake intervened, one who creates a dangerous condition through negligence, like defective construction, remains liable.

Uploaded by

Benitez Gherold
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
243 views1 page

Juan Nakpil & Sons Vs CA 144 SCRA 597 (1986)

The Philippine Bar Association hired Juan Nakpil & Sons to design and oversee construction of an office building. After completion, an earthquake caused the building to partially collapse and be damaged, while other buildings nearby withstood the tremors. The court found Juan Nakpil & Sons liable for damages because their plans and specifications contained defects and deviations from standards, and the contractor failed to follow the plans properly. Even though an earthquake intervened, one who creates a dangerous condition through negligence, like defective construction, remains liable.

Uploaded by

Benitez Gherold
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Juan Nakpil & Sons vs CA 144 SCRA 597 (1986)

Facts:
1. The private respondent (Philippine Bar Association) hired the services of the petitioner to make the
plans and specifications for the construction of their office building.
2. The building was completed by the contractor but subsequently, an earthquake struck causing its
partial collapse and damage.
Issue: Is the petitioner liable for damages in this case?
HELD: Yes.
Reason: The petitioner made substantial deviations from the plans and specifications and failed to observe
requisite workmanship standards in the construction of the building while their architect drew plans that
contain defects and other inadequacies. Both the contractor and the architect cannot escape liability for
damages when the building collapsed due to an earthquake. Other buildings in the area withstood the
tremor.
The lower court also found that the spirals in one of the columns in the ground floor has been cut. One who
creates a dangerous condition cannot escape liability even if an act of God may have intervened as in this
case. As such, the liability of the contractor (herein petitioner) and the architect for the collapse of the
building is solidary.

You might also like