Juan Nakpil & Sons v.

CA, 144 SCRA 597

FACTS:
Private respondents – Philippine Bar Association (PBA) – a non-profit
organization formed under the corporation law decided to put up a building in
Intramuros, Manila. Hired to plan the specifications of the building were Juan
Nakpil & Sons, while United Construction was hired to construct it. The proposal
was approved by the Board of Directors and signed by the President, Ramon
Ozaeta. The building was completed in 1966. In 1968, there was an unusually
strong earthquake which caused the building heavy damage, which led the
building to tilt forward, leading the tenants to vacate the premises. United
Construction took remedial measures to sustain the building.

ISSUE/S:
 Whether or not an act of God – an unusually strong earthquake – which caused
the failure of the building, exempts from liability, parties who are otherwise liable
because of their negligence.

RULING:
 No, they are not exempted from liability. There is no dispute that the earthquake
is a fortuitous event or an act of god. But, if upon the happening of a fortuitous
event or an act of God, here concurs a corresponding fraud, negligence, delay
or violation or contravention in any manner of the tenor of the obligation, which
results in loss or damage, the obligor cannot escape liability.

ARTICLE REFERENCE:
 Art. 1723 dictates that the engineer/architect and contractor are liable for
damages should the building collapse within 15 years from completion.
 Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring, 21 SCRA 279

FACTS:
 Barge owned by Luzon Stevedoring Corporation (defendant, LSC for brevity)
was being towed down the Pasig river by tugboats belonging to the same
corporation.` The barge rammed against one of the wooden piles of the
Nagtahan Bailey Bridge, smashing the posts and causing the bright to list. The
river, at that time, was swollen and the current swift, on account of the heavy
downpour of Manila and the surrounding provinces. Republic of the Philippines
(PH) sued LSC for actual and consequential damages caused by its employees.

ISSUE/S:
 Whether or not the collision of appellant's barge with the supports or piers of the
Nagtahan bridge was in law caused by fortuitous event or force majeure, and

 Whether or not it was error for the Court to have permitted the plaintiff-appellee
to introduce additional evidence of damages after said party had rested its case.

RULING:
 No. Considering that the Nagtahan bridge was an immovable and stationary object
and uncontrovertibly provided with adequate openings for the passage of water craft,
including barges like of NSC’s, it is undeniable that the unusual event that the barge,
exclusively controlled by appellant, rammed the bridge supports raises a presumption
of negligence on the part of appellant or its employees manning the barge or the tugs
that towed it. For in the ordinary course of events, such a thing does not happen if
proper case is used. Res ipsa loquitur.

ARTICLE REFERENCE:
 "Events that could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable" (Art.
1174, Civ. Code of the Philippines).
 Dioquino v. Laureano, 33 SCRA 65

FACTS:
Atty. Pedro Dioquino went to the MVO's office in Masbate to register his car. There he
met Federico Laureano, patrol officer of the office, who was about to leave for the
Provincial Commander's office. Dioquino asked Laureano to introduce him to one of the
clerks in the MVO office to facilitate the registration of his car. Laureano graciously
attended to it. Laureano then rode in Dioquino's car, with a driver on the wheel, going to
the Provincial Commander's office. (Note: Dioquino was not with them: Laureano was
the sole passenger). En route, the car was stoned by some boys and its windshield was
broken. Laureano chased the boys and was able to catch one of them. The boy was
taken to Dioquino, and the father was called, but no arrangements were made about the
damage. Laureano refused to file any charges against the boy and his parents because
he thought that the stone-throwing was merely accidental and that it was due to force
majeure.

ISSUE/S:
 WON the incident was force majeure
o YES, The situation falls under A1174. What happened was clearly
unforeseen. It was a fortuitous event resulting in a loss that must be borne
by the owner of the car.

o Re: A1174: It is not enough that the event should not have been foreseen or
anticipated, but it must be one impossible to foresee or to avoid. The more
difficulty to foresee the happening is not impossibility to foresee the same.

o The express language of A1174, except for the addition of the nature of an
obligation requiring the assumption of risk, compels the conclusion that in
the absence of a legal provision or an express covenant, “no one should be
held to account for fortuitous cases.”

RULING:
- WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court of November 2, 1965 in so far as it
orders defendant Federico Laureano to pay plaintiff the amount of P3,000.00 as damages
plus the payment of casts, is hereby reversed. It is affirmed insofar as it dismissed the
case against the other two defendants, Juanito Laureano and Aida de Laureano, and
declared that no moral damages should be awarded the parties. Without pronouncement
as to costs.

ARTICLE REFERENCE:
 Art. 1174 of the present Civil Code "Except in cases expressly specified by the law, or
when is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation
requires the assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which
could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable."
 Austria v. CA, 39 SCRA 527

FACTS:
 On Jan. 1961, Maria G. Abad acknowledged having received from Guillermo Austria
one (1) pendant with diamonds valued at P4,500.00, to be sold on commission basis
or to be returned on demand. - On Feb. 1961, however, while walking home Abad
was said to have been accosted by two men, who hit her and snatched her purse
containing the pieces of jewelry and cash and ran away. Thus, Abad failed to return
the jewelry or pay its value notwithstanding demands. Austria filed an action against
Abad and Abad’s husband for recovery of the pendant or of its value, and damages.
Abad raised the defense that the alleged robbery had extinguished their obligation.

ISSUE/S:
 Whether or not Court of Appeals erred in finding that there was robbery in the
case, thus extinguishing Abad’s liability, although nobody has been found guilty
of the supposed crime.

 Whether or not Abad was guilty of negligence

RULING:
- No. To avail of the exemption granted in the law, it is not necessary that the persons
responsible for the occurrence should be found or punished, it would only be sufficient to
establish that the enforceable event, the robbery in this case did take place without any
concurrence fault on the debtor’s part, and this can be done by preponderance of
evidence.
- A court finding that a robbery has happened would not necessary mean that those
accused in the criminal action should be found guilty of the crime; nor would a ruling that
those actually accused did not commit the robbery be inconsistent with a finding that a
robbery did take place.
- No. In 1961, when the robbery in question did take place, for at that time criminality
had not by far reached the levels attained in the present day. The diligence that Abad
portrayed when she went home before she was robbed was not a sign of negligence on
her part.

ARTICLE REFERENCE:
“Art. 1170. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of fraud,
Negligence, or Delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor there of are
liable for damages.”
 NPC v. CA, 161 SCRA 334

FACTS:
 Engineering Construction, Inc., (ESI) executed a contract with the National
Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA). ECI already had completed the
Tunnel Excavation Work while some portions of the outworks were still under
construction. As soon as the plaintiff corporation had finished the tunnel excavation
work at the Bicti site, all the equipment no longer needed there were transferred to the
Ipo site where some projects were yet to be completed. Typhoon "Welming" hit
Central Luzon. Due to the heavy downpour, the water of the Angat Dam was rising
and to prevent an overflow of water NPC caused the opening of the spillway gates.
Extraordinary large volume of water rushed out of the gates, and hit the installations
and construction works of ECI, as a result of which the latter's stockpile of materials
supplies, camp facilities and permanent structures and accessories whether washed
away, lost or destroyed.

ISSUE/S:
 Whether or not the destruction and loss of ECI's equipment and facilities were due to
force majeure which will exempt NPC from liability.

RULING:
 . No, NPC will not be exempted from liability. NPC was undoubtedly negligent because
it opened the spillway gates of the Angat Dam only at the height of typhoon “Welming”
when it knew very well that it was safer to have opened the same gradually and
earlier, as it was also undeniable that NPC know of the coming typhoon at least four
days before it actually struck.

ARTICLE REFERENCE:
 Article 1170 of the Civil Code, which results in loss or damage, the obligor cannot
escape liability.