Short answer. It can be either or both. Under Article 1723, the architect or engineer who drew the plans is liable if the building collapses within fifteen years due to a defect in the plans or in the ground, while the contractor is liable for defects in construction or inferior materials. If the architect also supervised, both are solidarily liable.
What the law says
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
Civil Code, Article 1723 — Liability of Engineer/Architect/Contractor for Collapse. Read the full provision →
What the law says
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.
Civil Code, Article 1723 — Liability of Engineer/Architect/Contractor for Collapse. Read the full provision →
What the law says
If the engineer or architect supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the contractor.
Civil Code, Article 1723 — Liability of Engineer/Architect/Contractor for Collapse. Read the full provision →
What the law says
within fifteen years from the completion of the structure
Civil Code, Article 1723 — Liability of Engineer/Architect/Contractor for Collapse. Read the full provision →
What the law says
The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building.
Civil Code, Article 1723 — Liability of Engineer/Architect/Contractor for Collapse. Read the full provision →
What the law says
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.
Civil Code, Article 1723 — Liability of Engineer/Architect/Contractor for Collapse. Read the full provision →
Each answers for their own kind of defect
Article 1723 divides responsibility by the source of the failure. 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.
When the architect supervises: solidary liability
The roles can converge. Article 1723 provides that If the engineer or architect supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the contractor. "Solidarily liable" means the injured party may recover the full damages from either of them, leaving the two to sort out their shares between themselves. So an architect who not only drew the plans but also oversaw the building's construction cannot confine his exposure to plan defects; he stands answerable together with the contractor for the collapse.
The time limits: fifteen years, then ten to sue
Two periods matter. First, the collapse must occur within fifteen years from the completion of the structure for this liability to attach — a defect that brings the building down long after that window is outside the article. Second, once a collapse does happen in time, The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse of the building. So there is a fifteen-year exposure period for the collapse itself, and a separate ten-year period, counted from the collapse, within which the injured party must sue.
Acceptance is not a waiver
A common misconception is that once the owner accepts the finished building, the professionals are off the hook. Article 1723 forecloses that: 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. So accepting and even occupying the structure does not surrender the right to sue if it later collapses from a covered defect.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Philippine Contractors Accreditation Board vs. Manila Water Company, Inc, G.R. No. 217590, March 10, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Uniwide Sales Realty and Resources Corporation vs. Titan-Ikeda Construction and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 126619, December 20, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- William Golangco Construction Corporation vs. Philippine Commercial International Bank, G.R. No. 142830, March 24, 2006 — read the decision on LawPhil →