MAPÚA UNIVERSITY

School of Civil, Environmental, and Geological Engineering

658 Muralla St., Intramuros, Manila

SAI BUILDING COLLAPSE IN DIVISORIA, MANILA

Submitted by:
Blancaflor, John Clint
Forlales, Abet Jan
Garganera, John Cedric

Submitted to:
Engr. Charmaine Czeninia Reguindin

CE119/E04

March 2020
 1. Existing Scenario

Collapse of the Sai Building

i. Background

The eight-story commercial-residential building located in Divisoria, Manila collapsed on

July 23, 2004. The five-year old building once stood on Padre Rada Street, in the center of a

typical busy Divisoria street finally collapsed at 4:40 P.M., landing on the Italy Marketing

building located across the street. This structure was owned by Ajit Mansukhan who was onsite

when the collapse occurred. No fatalities were recorded from this incident.
 ii. Locational Setting

The Sai Building was once located on 540 Commercio St, Binondo, Manila, Metro

Manila. It was a typical Divisoria street with narrow roads, bustling with activity, and a large

number of businesses ranging from small street carts to full establishments. Construction

sites were also scattered around the structure. The most notable structure nearby is the Italy

Marketing building which was hit when the structure finally fell.

2. Case Establishment

In the morning of July 23,2004, the building begun to lean which caused frightened

passersby running for their lives on the fear of being crushed by the large structure. The panic

caused heavy traffic, stalling the businesses around Divisoria. Once cleared of the site, several

civilians got closer to the structure to have a glimpse of the structure on the brink of tipping over

with both fascination and anticipation for the next events. A security guard working at the nearby

bank, Ernesto Ozaeta, is quoted for saying "As early as 10:30 a.m. we heard a loud sound, like a

transformer had exploded. When we went outside, we saw that the building had already tilted on

its side." The owner of the Sai building is quoted with saying: "I felt the building had sunk after I

heard a loud cracking sound." The local government sprung into action by directing vendors and

civilians to vacate the premises and get as far away of the site as possible to be safe from debris.

The police got news of the situation at noon. The area was already fully evacuated when they

responded. Offices and other establishments are abandoned to ensure the safety of the people

working in the nearby structures. It was 3:00 P.M. when the building was starting to lean four

feet to the right.

 An engineer and friend to the owner of the Sai Building, Engr. Harry Wong, is quoted in

saying: "The building's foundation may have weakened because there was construction work all

around it. My assessment is that when workers began pounding to lay down the concrete piles,

the soil structure underneath Sai had changed." There are two medium-rise buildings being

constructed in front of the Sai Building. The Sai Building contained office units, housing units,

and a textile warehouse. The owner claims that only 20 people are in the structure at any given

time. No tenant was allowed to enter the structure before the collapse to retrieve their belongings

by the Bureau of Fire Protection. There were no fatalities reported and the only injury reported is

the City Administrator, Dino Nable, who suffered a knee injury in the stampede that occurred

when the spectators ran away as the structure finally collapses.

These are the facts that are confirmed after the investigation:

 The owner of the Sai building, Ajit Mansukhan, is to be blamed for the accident

 There was a use of sub-standard materials in the construction of the structure

 The construction works nearby have no effects on the Sai Building, contrary to the

statement of Engr. Harry Wong

The following are the confirmed reasons on why the structure fell:

 Sub-standard construction materials

This was one of the primary reasons for the faulty design and construction of the

building. There was failure in the part of the Wilson Habana in supervising the
 construction as well as a lack of proper monitoring and inspection in the design of the

structure.

 Building loads are not transmitted to the rock or soil on which it rests

The building suffered from inadequate pile driving operations as field inspector

Rolito Samson. Initial probes started with the inspection of existing foundations and it

was found that there were problems in the pile foundation of the structure which most

likely lead to its collapse.

 Settlement and structural failure of the building

The ‘engineer friend’ of the owner claimed that, due to the pile driving operations

conducted in surrounding areas, the soil weakened and lead to the structure’s collapse.

This however was not the case since that area already had a long history of successful

pile driving activities which makes the claim very irregular. As for the feasibility of pile

driving activities to heavily impact the soil to the point that it would collapse is highly

unlikely. In order for the soil to weaken considerably, liquefaction must occur where the

soil is behaving like a liquid instead of a solid. However, an extremely high amount of

pressure or vibration is necessary for that to occur which makes the possibility of the

event becoming a non-occurrence. The main contributor for the structural failure is the

weak pile foundation.

Technical documents involved:

 Building Permit

Engineer Lirma Fajardo evaluated the building plans and passed it for compliance

with construction requirements.

 Certificate of Occupancy

Edgardo Soriano signed the certificate of occupancy after Wilson Habana

certified the compliance for securing of the certificate.

 Certificate of Final Inspection

Edgardo Soriano also signed the certificate of final inspection.

The following are the people who are charged with negligence:

 Rajude Ajit Mansukhani

 Albert Chua

 Edward Sy

 Engr. Harry Wong

 Engr. Teofilo Go

 Engr. Lima Fajardo

 Rolito Samson
  Wilson Habana

 Edgardo Soriano

 Officials Manila's Building Office

3. Considerations

i. Moral

In construction sites, many unforeseen things happen that causes delay and the engineers

or supervisors in charge of the work find the very reason what causes the delay. Many delays

can’t be avoided but many accidents or failures can be. Designs are strict to be followed and that

includes the materials that are to be used by the company to build the structure. Sub-standard

materials were used for the structure which resulted in the collapse of the building. It is

impossible to say that the engineer assigned to had made a wrong order of the needed materials

or that the designer accidentally inputted the wrong specification for the materials. The engineer

or designer may be an accomplice of some embezzlement to keep some of the funds needed for

the production of the necessary materials. The engineer made a statement saying that the reason

for the collapse is due to the nearby constructions that are ongoing but that is proven to be false.

Not only did he use materials that were below the required designs, but he also lied to get out of

the responsibility of taking the blame.

It is impossible to say that the facts found are not done intentionally. It is possible that a

meeting was done to resolve the issue of why sub-standard materials are going to be used but a

lot of the choice in the end to neglect the problem. Most people are afraid to take responsibility

for the problems and they’re more afraid to take the blame that they know they are guilty of. The
whole company can’t be blamed because it is not a person and the punishments for breaking the

ethical codes and laws only apply to an individual but another reason that the facts found

occurred may be due to the culture of the company itself since different companies have different

mindsets and methods of accomplishing their goals. This can have a great effect on how the

project will be done. It seems that they have prioritized finishing the project which shows that

they have no more concern for the safety of the stakeholders especially for those who will use

the building. Deep down people are selfish but common morality sets a standard for us to limit so

that it doesn’t have to come down to apathy. Engineers are taught to make ideas to be safe and

economical but here it seems that they chose to neglect the harm it will cause.

ii. Ethical

CANON 1. Civil Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare

of the public and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable development

in the performance of their duties.

The engineers involved in the construction of the SAI building, which is located in

Binondo, Manila, are to be blamed for the unfortunate event. The building collapsed in the

busy Divisoria, which of course, can cause fatality or harm to the people in the place of

collapse.

Even though there is no fatality involved in this situation. The engineers transgress

the first Canon of Ethics of Civil Engineering which is to paramount the safety, health and

welfare of the public. The investigation concludes that the collapse is due to the building

collapse due to the substandard materials. Therefore, the Quality Control Engineer can be
blamed here because all the materials must pass through him for inspection and he will sign

the approval forms before pouring.

The QC engineer as a fault here because all the materials will come through him. He

will have material testing forms as such by the construction company for it is standard to use

the materials that will be used for the construction. If the material passed the specifications as

per plan, then the materials are quality, but the investigation says otherwise. Also, an

inspection of the fabrications will fall under him. After all, this is approved (Certificate of

Final Inspection) then he will have the pouring request form approved before beginning the

concreting.

Another reason for the collapse, according to the investigation, is that the pile

foundation is not properly set. Therefore, the building's loads are not transmitted to the soil.

The QC engineer must able to inspect or approve it. The one who commands to put the pile is

also to blame because the pile is not properly set therefore this can make the buildings

collapse at it happens.

The engineers involved in the construction of the SAI building are all guilty of

violating the first fundamental canon of ethics. Not only are we to blame the engineers

directly involved with the use of sub-standard materials and those negligent of soil

conditions, but we are also to consider guilty the engineers who did nothing and turned a

blind eye to the malpractice of the civil engineering profession. The engineers in the

construction of the building may not want this tragedy to fall, but their competence and duty

fallout due to their negligence therefore they break the first Canon of Ethics.
 CANON 3. Civil Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and

truthful manner.

Engineers shall issue only true public statements in an objective and truthful manner.

Engr. Harry Wong, a friend of the owner tells the investigation that” the soil collapse

because of the nearby construction happening at that time”. This statement is false according

to the investigation. The investigation concludes that the construction from the nearby

buildings is not affecting the soil since it has been a long history of successful piles in the

area that the only reason for the soil to be completely weakened is by liquefaction. Therefore,

the statement said by Engr. Wong is misleading.

The reason behind in his statements can be because he wants to defend himself from

the consequences or he just assumes that his statement is true and that he didn’t care if his

statement is correct or not. In all these reasons, He still in transgression of the 3rd Canon of

Ethics because he is not truthful to his statements when asked in the investigation

Engineers should remain truthful to the general public at all times unlike how Engr.

Harry Wong issued a fallacious statement that shifted blame from the owner and engineers of

the project and unto the people involved with the nearby excavation works like the ones who

compromised the integrity of their structure. People may get the wrong idea and have the fear

that nearby construction works can lead to the eventual collapse of a structure since most of

the general public are unaware or lack knowledge of proper engineering principles and they

are likely to believe the statements of a professional even if they are not true. As a result,

misinformation regarding the civil engineering profession will spread.

 4. Significance Findings

i. Conclusion

The negligence of the people involved is to blame for this incident. The owner and the

engineers involved in the design and construction of the structure is to blame for intentionally

using sub-standard materials and disregarding the soil beneath the structure. The officials of the

Manila Building Office either failed to see the faults in the plans that they gave a permit or is

given bribes to turn a blind eye to such faults. The engineers of the structure have no intention to

cause harm and damage, but they neglected their responsibility to design and construct structures

that follow the National Structural Code of the Philippines which is considered unethical. There

is no proof, but the engineers must have something to gain from doing this. It can only be

speculated that they pocketed the money saved by not following the code.

ii. Recommendation

The collapse of this commercial building within just five years from its establishment

shows an utter disregard for the National Building Code of the Philippines. Relating to one of

the main causes of collapse, better analysis of soil conditions and necessary actions to be

taken should be strictly enforced by relevant officials to prevent similar events in the future.

In addition to this, more thorough inspections of the quality of construction materials should
 be implemented to determine if National Building Code provisions are being violated.

Corruption is widespread and it is important to reduce the likelihood of negligent officials

from the Manila Building Office by appointing those that are trustworthy and uphold the

honor, integrity, and dignity of the civil engineering profession

References

HARRIS, C. E., PRITCHARD, M. S., & RABINS, M. J. (2009). Engineering Ethics: Concepts and
Cases,. (W. Hawes, Ed.) Wadsworth, Belmont, USA: Cengage Learning.
Sison Jr., B., & Felipe, C. (2004). Building in Manila collapses; no one hurt. philstar Global. Retrieved
from https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2004/07/24/258651/building-manila-collapses-no-one-
hurt