DEMYSTIFYING AND APPRECIATING THE LAW (Part 2 of X) ON THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS A Layman’s Interpretation of Law Intended for Philippine Architects, Design Engineers and Allied Professionals, as well as for Aspirants to said State-regulated professions and for Constructors For a registered and licensed architect (RLA), the Design Engineer and the Constructor, the most important provision of R.A. No. 386, the 1949 Civil Code of the Philippines (CCP) is Article 1723, which reads: “The engineer or ARCHITECT who drew up the plans and specifications for a building is LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IF WITHIN FIFTEEN YEARS FROM THE COMPLETION OF THE STRUCTURE, THE SAME SHOULD COLLAPSE BY REASON OF A DEFECT IN THOSE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, OR DUE TO THE DEFECTS IN THE GROUND. The CONTRACTOR is likewise responsible for the damages if the edifice falls, within the same period, 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. If the engineer or ARCHITECT SUPERVISES THE CONSTRUCTION, HE SHALL BE SOLIDARILY LIABLE WITH THE CONTRACTOR. ACCEPTANCE OF THE BUILDING, AFTER COMPLETION, DOES NOT IMPLY WAIVER OF ANY OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION by reason of any defect mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The ACTION MUST BE BROUGHT WITHIN TEN YEARS FOLLOWING THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDING.” (emphases supplied) Annotations: 1. On paragraph 1: a) When the RLA brings in the structural engineer (SE) as part of his team, and collapse occurs due to faulty structural design, then the RLA becomes jointly responsible for the failed structural design. Unless the RLA is fully confident of the SE’s capabilities, the best arrangement is for the SE to sign a separate service agreement with the Client. It would also be helpful if the RLA were not the party responsible for introducing the SE to the Client or the Client’s representative e.g. Project Manager (PM); in any case, the RLA could be the primary party responsible for bringing the SE into the project and if sued civilly, the RLA may have to consider filing a separate civil suit against the SE (i.e. a cross claim), particularly if the SE is considering washing his/her hands of liability; b) in a recent Supreme Court (SC) decision penned by the incumbent Chief Justice (CJ), the SC held that the acts of a Construction Manager (CM) directly bind a Client, who is represented by said CM. It is also not true that CM’s do not have any civil liability under Art. 1723 of the CCP because the work of the CM was supposed to be part of the work of the Design Engineer or RLA some 6 decades ago. Therefore, the concept of CM cannot be detached from the work of the Design Engineer or the RLA i.e. they are ALL Client representatives whose actions bind the Client. Besides, the CM would have also signed a separate service agreement with the Client and the terms of such a service agreement bind and make the CM both professionally responsible and civilly liable to the Client. c) It is clear that the start of the 15 year liability period is the “completion” of the building. There is however need to establish at what point exactly is the “completion” of the building. Is it at 95% substantial completion or at 100% completion as certified by the CM? Note that as there is no mention of the content of the building i.e. furniture, furnishings, fixtures, fittings (FFFF), equipment, etc., it is presumed that the occupancy of the building is not the reckoning point for the start of the 15-year liability period. d) It is clear that the lack of proper geo-technical studies can be a cause for action. 2. On paragraph 2: a) it has not been sufficiently clarified whether the RLA supervision that is referred to is fulltime construction supervision (FCS) or periodic construction supervision (PCS); solidary liability should only lie with a RLA performing FCS work; and b) FCS is today performed by the CM entity; as such the CM entity is liable under paragraph 2 of Art. 1723. 3. On paragraph 4: a) as the term “collapse of the building” is used, the same presumes large scale damage requiring replacement of the building; in a case decided by the SC pertaining to a collapsed building requiring full replacement, the RLA and the Constructor apparently shared the replacement cost equally; and b) if the collapse occurs on the 13th year after “completion” of the building, the civil suit must be brought against the responsible parties (including the PM or CM as necessary) before the end of the 23rd year. The foregoing are a layman’s interpretation only. Comments, suggestions and corrections from the legal professionals are most welcome. Thank You very much.
Posted on: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 10:46:32 +0000