Now, it boils down to waiting.
Results of investigations called by the Angeles City Government onto the collapsed building last May 24 in Barangay Balibago are not out yet.
In last week’s guesting of Mayor Jon Lazatin at News @Hues, the chief executive said that they still await the participation and eventual findings of structural engineers from the private sector who would tandem with their counterparts from the DPWH in the probe.
Thus, even if Mayor Jon, wanted to give media a preview of the report at the regular media forum of the Pampanga Press Club at Park Inn by Radisson Clark, he made it both proper and understandable to hold his horses. He cannot jump the gun. He cannot be faulted for that.
In the same week, there were two news reports though that gave us an update and an expert legal opinion. The update was about the announcement of an imposition of P11 million plus fine by the DOLE on both the owner and contractor of the collapsed building for alleged violation of labor standards and occupational health and safety rules.
News headlines on both national and local media were also hogged by a legal opinion issued by one Atty. Simoun Salinas, who is said to be an expert on the subject.
+++++
On the P11 million fine, I will not be surprised if an appeal will be filed by Atty. Nicolai Manguerra, counsel for the contractor – the Golden Years Construction and Steel Works Corp.
As for the owner, they may just follow suit and likewise ask for reconsideration. Knowing their counsel Atty. Willie Rivera, who scored victory for Delfin Lee in landmark housing cases, may not take that sitting down.
And the building owner might just have a strong case. This brings me to write about the headline last week on who really has the primary responsibility at this point.
Probably to aid the owners fathom the imposition of the penalty especially in making a counter claim, an independent view from a lawyer – one Atty. Salinas – surfaced last week.
The lawyer, being cited as a legal expert in various news accounts, may not be that famous but his views are of utmost importance. He may not be high profile but what was attributed to him could have high impact.
His name may not even be remembered at all when all the smoke clears but the jurisprudence he is citing are worth reviewing and revisiting today and in the years to come. After all, they have been made part of landmark ruling that pinpoints liability since the 1980s.
+++++
To sum up the points of Atty. Salinas, he noted that under Philippine laws, the principal accountability for defective or failed structures and site safety violations rests on the contractors.
He said that “while the National Building Code serves to enforce uniform standards to protect property and public welfare,” the Civil Code of the Philippines provides “the specific legal shield for property owners against structural failure.”
He cited the landmark case of Nakpil vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-47851) which, he said, has established that architects and contractors are solidarily liable for structural defects and poor construction that lead to building failure.
News reports quoted him as saying: “In the 1988 Resolution dismissing Nakpil's Motion for Reconsideration (243 Phil. 489), the contractor tried to shift responsibility to the owner of the building, stating that it was the responsibility of the Philippine Bar Association (PBA) as the building owner to ensure and provide active round-the-clock supervision as the owner of the structure.”
“But the Supreme Court held that this position had no basis in law and fact, and was directly contrary to the ordinary practice that constructing a building involved highly technical matters, and beyond the ordinary experience of the owners.”
Long story short is that in Salinas’ opinion - the Supreme Court agreed that the trial court was correct: the owner cannot be held responsible for full-time construction supervision, as this is not backed by any law or contract.
Salinas made mention of Section 302 of the National Building Code requires that all building plans, specifications, and design computations be prepared, signed, and sealed by duly licensed architects and civil/structural engineers.
The lawyer explained that this recognizes the property owner’s reliance on licensed professionals to build the structure.
Consequently therefore, Salinas adds that if a building collapses due to flawed design or bad engineering, the civil liability shifts from the owner to the professionals. Again, he cited the Civil Code Article 1723 which works hand-in-hand with the National Building Code.
Salinas noted that “if the owner can prove that it undertook all of the necessary obligations in securing the proper permits and licenses, and that he or she exercised proper and due diligence in selecting and hiring the contractor, etc., then the owner has no liability under the law; the owner will not be liable criminally and civilly.”
+++++
Aside from Salinas, there was also an opinion expressed by an expert on labor safety as also carried by some news reports few days after the incident.
One Choi Cruz who was identified to be an occupational safety and health consultant at DOLE was quoted as saying: “The primary duty of managing construction workers/employees, including their well-being, as well as compliance with the Building Code and Labor safety rules, falls on the contractor”
He added that the “contractor is legally and operationally in charge of workforce management and site safety,” explaining that when an owner hires a contractor, the owner passes site control to the contractor.
“The contractor is legally responsible for Labor Rules, Site Safety, and Building Code Execution,” according to the Cruz.
This Cruz may join Salinas in the hall of the not-so-famous, but then again what counts most are not their names nor their faces but the views that may stand firm before the courts as they are based on legal frameworks and precedents.
