Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
NINTH DIVISION
PHILIPPINE INSTITUTE
OF CIVIL ENGINEERS,
INC., and LEO CLETO
GAMOLO,
Petitioners-Appellants,
-versusTHE
HONORABLE
HERMOGENES EBDANE,
JR., in his capacity as
SECRETARY OF PUBLIC
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS,
Respondent-Appellee,
UNITED ARCHITECTS OF
THE PHILIPPINES,
Intervenor-Appellee
x ================================================ x
D E CI S I O N
and
temporary
restraining
order
against
then
laws arguing that RA No. 544 and PD 1096 have been repealed or
modified accordingly by Republic Act No. 9266 otherwise known
as "The Architecture Act of 2004" particularly Section 20 (2) and
(5), Article III, and Sections 25 and 29, Article IV, thereof, which
are so irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant to the laws cited
and invoked by the petitioners.
Subsequently,
intervenor
United
Architects
of
the
see Order dated May 25, 2005 (Rollo Vol. I pp. 83-85)
Record Vol. I pp. 121-139
Record Vol. I pp. 239-281
see Motion for Leave to Intervene and Admit Attached Answer/Comment in Intervention (Record
Vol. I pp. 200- 210
Record Vol. I pp. 433-434
the
instant
petition
is
hereby
Felipe Cruz and David Consunji before Branch 219 of the RTC of
Quezon City docketed as Civil Case No. 05-55273.
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE
TRIAL COURT A QUO ERRED IN
DECLARING
THAT
THE
CIVIL
ENGINEERING
LAW
AND
THE
NATIONAL BUILDING CODE DO NOT
AUTHORIZE CIVIL ENGINEERS TO
PREPARE, SIGN AND SEAL PLANS
THAT ARE ENUMERATED IN SECTION
302 (4) OF THE REVISED IRR;
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE
TRIAL COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY
ERRED IN NOT RECOGNIZING THAT
10
11
THERE
IS
OVERLAPPING
OF
FUNCTIONS
BETWEEN
CIVIL
ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS;
III
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE
TRIAL COURT A QUO ERRED IN
DECLARING
THAT
THE
CIVIL
ENGINEERING
LAW
AND
THE
NATIONAL BUILDING CODE IN SO FAR
AS
THEY
AUTHORIZED
CIVIL
ENGINEERS TO SIGN BUILDING PLANS
WERE REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT
NO. 9266;
IV
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE
TRIAL COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT
FINDING THAT SERIOUS DAMAGE
AND PREJUDICE WILL BE CAUSED TO
CIVIL
ENGINEERS
WHICH
CONSTITUTES DEPRIVATION OF THEIR
RIGHT
TO
SUBSTANTIVE
DUE
PROCESS;
V
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE
TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT
Section 203. General Powers and Functions of the Secretary under this Code.
For purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Code, the Secretary shall exercise the following
4.
The
disputed
10
Revised
Implementing
Rules
and
In the implementation of the provisions of this Code, the Secretary shall formulate necessary rules
and regulations and adopt design and construction standards and criteria for buildings and other
structures. Such standards, rules and regulations shall take effect after their publication once a week
for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation.
4. Architectural Documents
a. Architectural Plans/Drawings
i. Vicinity Map/Location Plan within a 2.00 kilometer
radius for commercial, industrial, and institutional complex and
within a half-kilometer radius for residential buildings, at any
convenient scale showing prominent landmarks or major
thoroughfares for easy reference.
ii. Site Development Plan showing technical description,
boundaries,
orientation
and
position
of
proposed
building/structure in relation to the lot, existing or proposed
access road and driveways and existing public utilities/services.
Existing buildings within and adjoining the lot shall be hatched
and distances between the
proposed
and
existing
buildings shall be indicated.
11
12
13
14
15
16
2004
17
that
what
specific
documents
are
considered
as
In
therefore,
of
the
documents
specified
as
18
19
20
xxx
xxx
21
22
xxx
xxx
xxx
23
the space
24
25
26
The Court is mindful that it has been argued in this case that
the aforesaid statement as it appears, emphasized above, does not
appear in the official version of the National Building Code, as
published13 in the Official Gazette. Intervenors-appellees UAP
allege that the last paragraph of Section 302, as published in the
Official Gazette, only reads as follows:
"To be submitted together with such application are at
least five sets of corresponding plans and specifications
prepared, signed and sealed by a duly mechanical engineer in
case of mechanical plans, and by a registered electrical engineer
in case of electrical plans, except in those cases exempted or not
required by the Building Official under this Code.14 (emphasis
supplied)
13
14
27
28
Overlapping of Functions
29
person,
often
used
interchangeably.
(as
per
30
In the appealed decision, the trial court held that the Civil
Engineering Law (RA 544) and the National Building Code (PD
SECTION 302. Application for Permits
xxx
xxx
xxx
3. Five (5) sets of survey plans, design plans, specifications and other documents prepared,
signed
and sealed over the printed names of the duly licensed and registered professionals (Figs.
III.1.
and III.2.):
xxx
xxx
xxx
b. Architect, in case of architectural documents; in case of
architectural interior/interior design documents, either an architect or interior designer may
sign;
17
31
contains a repealing
clause18 which repeals RA 545 and all other laws, orders, rules
and regulations or resolutions or part/s thereof inconsistent with
the provisions of RA 9266. However, settled is the rule that a
declaration in a statute, usually in its repealing clause, that a
particular and specific law, identified by its number and title is
repealed, is an express repeal; all other repeals are implied repeals
(Mecano vs. Commission on Audit, 216 SCRA 500, 504 (1992)) In this
case, RA 544 and PD 1096 were not specifically mentioned in the
repealing clause of RA 9266.
SECTION 46. Repealing Clause. - Republic Act No. 545, as amended by Republic Act No. 1581
is hereby repealed and all other laws, orders, rules and regulations or resolutions or part/s thereof
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
32
33
It is
SECTION 43. Act Not Affecting Other Professionals. - This Act shall not be construed to affect or
prevent the practice of any other legally recognized profession.
34
No Forum Shopping
Finally, the Court is of the view that the trial court erred in
concluding that forum shopping was present in this case. It is true
that Civil Case No. Q-05-55273 pending before Branch 219 of the
RTC of Quezon City was similarly questioning the assailed
provision in the Revised NBC IRR. However, the Court notes that
the complaint in Civil Case No. Q-05-55273 was withdrawn by the
parties20 and subsequently dismissed by the trial court on July 18,
2006.21
35
36
entered as follows:
37
SO ORDERED.
ROMEO F. BARZA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
NOEL G. TIJAM
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Ninth Division
EDWIN D. SORONGON
Associate Justice
38
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Court.
NOEL G. TIJAM
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Ninth Division