Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Blaming typhoon Odette may not be a good defense
Bonie’s newly constructed house was severely damaged after typhoon Odette. His house was designed to withstand strong typhoons like Odette and Yolanda. Unfortunately, the whole roof of his neighbor’s two-storey house fell on the roof of his house. As a result, the roof of Bonie’s house was damaged which caused flooding inside the house resulting in total damage to his expensive appliances. Bonie demanded from his neighbor for indemnity to the damage he suffered but the neighbor refused arguing that what happened was an act of God, and therefore, he has no liability.
A similar case was resolved by the Supreme Court after powerful typhoon Saling hit Metro Manila on October 11, 1989. The Dimaanos are co-owners of a house at 326 College Road, Pasay City, while Southeastern College Inc. owns a four-storey school building along the same College Road. On October 11, 1989, at about 6:30 in the morning, a powerful typhoon “Saling” hit Metro Manila. Buffeted by very strong winds, the roof of Southeastern’s building was partly ripped off and blown away, landing on and destroying portions of the roofing of house of the Dimaanos.
Upon inspection, the City Building Official found that:
- One of the factors that may have led to this calamitous event is the formation of the building in the area and the general direction of the wind. Situated in the peripheral lot is an almost U-shaped formation of 4-storey building. Thus, with the strong winds having a westerly direction, the general formation of the building becomes a big funnel-like structure, the one situated along College Road, receiving the heaviest impact of the strong winds. Hence, there are portions of the roofing, those located on both ends of the building, which remained intact after the storm.
- Another factor and perhaps the most likely reason for the dislodging of the roofing structural trusses is the improper anchorage of the said trusses to the roof beams. The 1/2′ diameter steel bars embedded on the concrete roof beams which serve as truss anchorage are not bolted nor nailed to the trusses. Still, there are other steel bars which were not even bent to the trusses, thus, those trusses are not anchored at all to the roof beams.
The trial court, giving credence to the ocular inspection report to the effect that subject school building had a “defective roofing structure,” found that, while typhoon “Saling” was accompanied by strong winds, the damage to the houses “could have been avoided if the construction of the roof of school building was not faulty.
On appeal, however, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision holding Southeastern liable.
The Court explained that in order that a fortuitous event may exempt a person from liability, it is necessary that he be free from any previous negligence or misconduct by reason of which the loss may have been occasioned. An act of God cannot be invoked for the protection of a person who has been guilty of gross negligence in not trying to forestall its possible adverse consequences. When a person’s negligence concurs with an act of God in producing damage or injury to another, such person is not exempt from liability by showing that the immediate or proximate cause of the damages or injury was a fortuitous event. When the effect is found to be partly the result of the participation of man — whether it be from active intervention, or neglect, or failure to act — the whole occurrence is hereby humanized and removed from the rules applicable to acts of God.
In exonerating Southeastern from liability, the Supreme Court said that there is no question that a typhoon or storm is a fortuitous event, a natural occurrence which may be foreseen but is unavoidable despite any amount of foresight, diligence or care. In order to be exempt from liability arising from any adverse consequence engendered thereby, there should have been no human participation amounting to a negligent act. In other words, the person seeking exoneration from liability must not be guilty of negligence. Negligence, as commonly understood, is conduct which naturally or reasonably creates undue risk or harm to others. It may be the failure to observe that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justify demand, or the omission to do something which a prudent and reasonable man, guided by considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do.
A person claiming damages for the negligence of another has the burden of proving the existence of fault or negligence causative of his injury or loss. The facts constitutive of negligence must be affirmatively established by competent evidence, not merely by presumptions and conclusions without basis in fact.
In the present case, other than the said ocular inspection, no investigation was conducted to determine the real cause of the partial unroofing of the school building. Private respondents did not even show that the plans, specifications and design of said school building were deficient and defective. Neither did they prove any substantial deviation from the approved plans and specifications. Nor did they conclusively establish that the construction of such building was basically flawed.