Short answer. Not automatically shielded. Article 2192's 'only' language routes a pure construction-defect claim to the engineer, architect, or contractor, but that exclusivity applies specifically to defects in the original construction. If the balcony instead deteriorated from the owner's failure to maintain an otherwise sound structure, that neglect falls outside Article 2192 and the owner can be sued directly.
What the law says
the third person suffering damages may proceed only against the engineer or architect or contractor in accordance with said article, within the period therein fixed.
Civil Code, Article 2192 — When the Engineer or Architect Answers. Read the full provision →
The Word 'Only' Is Doing the Work
Article 2192 is short, but its operative word is 'only.' Where the damage flows from a defect in the construction itself, the injured party's remedy runs exclusively against the engineer, architect, or contractor responsible under Article 1723, not against the building's owner or proprietor. The owner who neither designed nor built the defective structure is deliberately left out of this particular route to recovery, even though the owner is the one who profits from the building and the one the injured party may find easiest to identify.
Why the Law Draws the Line Here
The reasoning tracks fault rather than convenience. A construction defect originates in the judgment, design, or workmanship of the professionals bound by Article 1723's own liability rules, not in anything the current owner did after taking possession of a finished structure. Directing the claim at the people who actually caused the defect, rather than at whoever happens to hold title when it manifests years later, keeps responsibility attached to the decision that produced the harm in the first place.
When It Is Not a Construction Defect
This exclusivity only applies to defects traceable to the original construction. If the injury instead comes from an owner's failure to maintain a soundly built structure — letting it deteriorate, ignoring visible damage, skipping repairs — that falls back under the ordinary rules for proprietors of buildings and structures, and the owner remains a proper defendant in that scenario. A tenant or visitor injured this way sues the owner under the same general-negligence framework that applies to any building owner, not under the specialized construction-defect route reserved for the original builders.
The Time Limit Attached to This Route
Article 2192 also imports Article 1723's own prescriptive period into the claim, since it says the suit proceeds against the builders 'within the period therein fixed.' A construction-defect claim against the engineer, architect, or contractor is not open-ended, and missing that window can close off this remedy even where the defect itself is not in dispute. That time limit binds only the construction-defect route itself; a separate claim against the owner for post-construction neglect runs under its own, ordinarily longer, prescriptive period.
Related provisions
- Civil Code, Article 2192 — When the Engineer or Architect Answers
- Civil Code, Article 2190 — Liability for a Collapsing Building
- Civil Code, Article 2191 — Other Liabilities of Proprietors