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.