Perseverance and determination are two of the cornerstones of the Filipino people towards having a better future for themselves, and for their own families. For instance, numerous people in the Philippines dream to build something to materialize their success; for some, this is evident when they create houses to call their new homes, others on the other hand, establish businesses to further amplify their growth. Regardless of choices, one entrusts the responsibilities of having their homes or properties built by a professional such as an architect, engineer, and a contractor.

Unfortunately, years of hard work can be ruined in a matter of minutes.  Natural disasters, deemed as “Acts of God” are an unavoidable and destructive event free from human intervention; most commonly, these take form in catastrophes such as floods or earthquakes. Consequently, such events, which, as mentioned are unavoidable, exempt persons from liabilities. The reality being, however, is that the rule with regards to the exemption of liability in cases of natural disasters is sometimes used as a shield to commit abuse and undue advantage against individuals and especially against the common Filipino. While your contractor might play the blame game, it is important that you are well-versed within your right in demanding accountability from these entities. As such, the law is firm from its stance that natural disasters are in no way an excuse for negligence and bad faith.

In the spirit of fairness, the law, through the New Civil Code, tackles “Acts of God” as an issue. Under Article 1174 of the Code, the law provides that no person shall be responsible for events which could not be foreseen or which though foreseen, were inevitable. Indeed, basing on this provision alone, contractors, and/or engineers and architects, would be free from liabilities against building collapses and structural damages from their works. Deceitful building contractors.

Article 1723 of the Code, however, expressly declared how engineers or architects are liable for damages provided there be defects in their plans and specifications, or due to defects in the ground. Likewise, for contractors, Article 1723 strictly rules that they are responsible for damages if the edifice falls, on account of defects in the construction or the use of materials of inferior quality furnished by him, or due to any violation of the terms of the contract.

Moreover, in Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. Court of Appeals et al. (G.R No. L-47851 3 October 1986), the Supreme Court determined the following requisites to exempt a building contractor from Article 1174 of the Civil Code; these are the following:

• The cause of the breach of the obligation must be independent of the will of the debtor;
• The event must be either unforeseeable or unavoidable;
• The event must be such as to render it impossible for the debtor to fulfill his obligation in a normal manner; and
• The debtor must be free from any participation in, or aggravation of the injury to the creditor.

The rule therefore prohibits undue advantage should it be proven that both engineers and architects, along with contractors, acted negligently in fulfilling their agreement between them and their opposing parties.

Architects, engineers, and contractors, must fulfill their respective oaths as professionals, and as ethical citizens, to ensure that their work is safe and of the highest quality. Regardless of a project’s financial constraints, building contractors should never utilize defects and materials of poor quality without the consent of its clients. Guided by upholding public safety, transparency and accountability should be inalienable principles with the issue at hand.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by your access to or use of this content. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their specific legal concerns.