CA-G.R. CV No.

93917 1
DECISION
x --------------------------------x

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

NINTH DIVISION

PHILIPPINE INSTITUTE CA-G.R. CV No. 93917

OF CIVIL ENGINEERS,
INC., and LEO CLETO
GAMOLO,
Petitioners-Appellants,
-versus- TIJAM, N. G.,
Chairperson
THE HONORABLE BARZA, R.F., and
HERMOGENES EBDANE, SORONGON, E.D., JJ.
JR., in his capacity as
SECRETARY OF PUBLIC
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS,
Respondent-Appellee,
PROMULGATED
JAN 05 2012
UNITED ARCHITECTS OF
THE PHILIPPINES,
Intervenor-Appellee
X -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 2
DECISION
x --------------------------------x

DECISION
BARZA, R. F., J.:

Before this Court is an appeal from the Decision, dated

January 29, 2008, of Branch 22 of the Regional Trial Court of the
City of Manila in Civil Case No. 05-112502.

The relevant antecedent facts, as culled from the record, are

as follows:

On May 3, 2005, petitioners Philippine Institute of Civil

Engineers, Inc., (PICE) and Leo Cleto Gamolo, general counsel of
PICE, filed a Petition2 for declaratory relief and injunction with a
prayer for a writ of preliminary prohibitory and/or mandatory
injunction and temporary restraining order against then Honorable
Hermogenes Ebdane, Jr., in his capacity as Secretary of Public Works
and Highways.

Docketed as Civil Case No. 05-112502, petitioners essentially

asserted that civil engineers, including petitioner Gamolo and the

__________________

Rollo pp,90-120
Record Vol. I pp. 2 - 11
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 3
DECISION
x --------------------------------x

members of the PICE, have been preparing, signing and affixing

their seals on plans for submission to Building Officials as a
requirement for a building permit. These plans include among others
a) Vicinity Map/Location Plan, b) Site Development Plan, c)
Perspective, d) Floor Plan, e) Elevations, f) Sections and the like.
They asserted for several decades Building Officials have accepted and
approved these plans which were prepared and sealed by civil
engineers or by architects as a requirement for the issuance of a
building permit. However, under Sections 302.3 302.4 of the of the
Revised NBC IRR promulgated by Department of Public Works and
Highways (DPWH), plans that were previously prepared und
signed/sealed by civil engineers or architects are now to be signed
exclusively by architects. The aforementioned provisions of the
Revised NBC IRR, the petitioners argue, are contrary to existing laws
particularly Republic Act No.544 (RA No. 544) otherwise known as
The Civil Engineering Law, and Presidential Decree No. 1096 (PD
1096) otherwise known as The National Building Code of the
Philippines.

On May 24, 2005, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary

injunction enjoining the respondent Secretary, his agents,
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 4
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
representatives and assigns, from implementing and carrying out
the questioned provisions in the subject IRR.

In its Answer1 the respondent Secretary, represented by the

Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), while admitting that civil
engineers were previously allowed under RA No. 544 and PD
1096 to sign/seal the aforementioned plans, denied that the subject
provisions in the Revised NBC IRR were contrary to existing
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

Philippines (UAP) entered the fray by filing its Answer/Comment in
Intervention,5 and a motion for its admittance6 thereof, which
the trial court admitted/granted in its Order7 dated November 17,

_____________________________________________
1
sec Order dated May 25, 2005 (rollo Vol.I pp.83-85)
4
Record Vol, I pp. 121-139
5
Record Vol. I pp 239-281
6
sec Motion for Leave to Intervene and Admit Attached Answer/Comment in Intervention (Record Vol. I pp.200-210)
7
Record Vol. 1 pp. 433 - 434
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 5
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
2005. Echoing the arguments of the respondent Secretary, the UAP
in its answer argued that "The Architecture Act of 2004" was
purposely drafted to, among others, curtail the practice of Civil
Engineers of drafting and signing architectural documents which
are not within their area of competence/expertise. Moreover,
intervenor UAP alleged that the petitioners case should be
dismissed on the ground of forum shopping due to the fact that a
similar case for declaratory relief, docketed as Civil Case No. 05-
55273, was filed by civil engineers Felipe F. Cruz and David
Consunji on April 28, 2005 before Branch 219 of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City.

On January 10, 2006, pre-trial was conducted and terminated

with the parties agreeing to submit the petition for resolution on

the basis of their admissions and stipulations and their respective

memorandums.8

On January 29, 2008, the trial court rendered the appealed

Decision9 which dismissed the instant petition and lifted the writ of
preliminary injunction. The fallo of the decision reads:

_____________________________________
8
see Order dnicd January 10, 2006 (Rollo Vol. 11 p, 556)
9
Record Vol. III pp. 1217-1247
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 6
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
"WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby
DISMISSED and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued, is
hereby lifted or dissolved.

SO ORDERED.

In so ruling, the trial court held that contrary to the claims of the
petitioners, The Civil Engineering Law (RA 544), particularly Sections 2
.md 23 thereof, does not state in dear and unequivocal language that civil
engineers can prepare and sign architectural documents- The trial court
also held that neither can the petitioners validly invoke The National
Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096), particularly Section 302
thereof, as the legal basis to justify the alleged authority of civil
.engineers to prepare, sign and seal architectural plans, sai authority not
having been expressly conferred under the official and correct version of
the law. Moreover, the trial court held that the provisions of laws being
invoked by the petitionars are irreconciblably inconsistent and repugnunt
with the provisions of The Architecture Act of 2004 (RA 9266), hence
the former laws are deemed to have been repealed or modified
accordingly by the letter law. Finally, the trial court determined that
forum shopping was present in this case since the petition for declaratory
and injunction filed by the petitioners was substantially identical to the
petition filed by
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 7
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
Feilipe Cruz and David Consunji before Branch 219 of the
RTC of Quezon City docketed as Civil Case No. 05-55273.

Aggrieved, petitioners sought reconsideration10 but this

was denied by the trial court in its Order11 dated May 4,
2009.

Undaunted, the petitioners have filed the present appeal

imputing the following errors to the trial court:

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
PREPEARE, SIGN AND SEAL PLANS
THAT ARE ENNUMERATED 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
see Motion for Reconsideration (Record Vol. III pp. 1248-1268)
11
Record Vol. III pp. 1622-1625)
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 8
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
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 AUTHORIZE 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;

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE

TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 9
DECISION
x --------------------------------x

THERE WAS FORUM SHOPPING.

First, a brief recap of the applicable laws involved in this

dispute. There are essentially four (4) laws involved in this
dispute, namely:

1. Republic Act 544 (RA 544), otherwise known as the Civil

Engineering, I.aw, which was passed in 1950. RA 544 governs the

eraciicc or civil engineering in this country.

2. Republic Act No. 9266 otherwise known as the

Architecture Act of 2004" which amended Republic Act No. 545

(RA 545 or the Old Architecture Law, for brevity).

3. Presidential Decree No. 1096 (PD 1096) otherwise known as

The National Building Code which provides among other
Things its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) shall be
promulgated by the Secretary of the Ministry of Public works and
Highways (now Department of Public Works and Highways or
DPWH). 12

______________________
12
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
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 10
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
4. The disputed Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations
of the National Building Code (.Revised NBC iRR, for
brevity) which was promulgated by then Acting Secretary
of Public Works and Highways Hon. Fiorante Soriquez in
2004 which revised the old implementing rules and
regulations (Old IRR, for brevity).

The dispute in the present case essentially centers around

Section 302.3 of the Revised NBC 1RR, in. relation to Section 302.4
Thereof, which provides as follows:

"SECTION 302. Application for Permits

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.):
a. Geodetic Engineer, in case of lot survey plans.
________________________
General powers and functions:
Xxx xxx xxx
(2) Issue and promulgate rules and regulations to implement the provisions of this Code and ensure
compliance with policies, plans, standards and guidelines formulated under paragraph 1 of this Section.
Xxx xxx xxx
Section 211. Implementing Rules and Regulations. 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.
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 11
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
b, Architect, in case of architectural documents; in case of
architectural interior/interior design documents, either an architect or
interior designer may sign;

c. Civil Engineer, in case of civil/structural documents;

d, Professional Electrical Engineer, in case of electrical

documents;

e, Professional Mechanical Engineer, in case of mechanical

documents

f. Sanitary Engineer, in case of sanitary documents;

g. Master Plumber in case of plumbing documents;

h. Electronics Engineer in case of electronics documents.

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
buliding/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.
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 12
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
iii. Perspective drawn at a convenient scale and taken from a
vantage point (bird's eye view or eye level).

iv. Floor Plans drawn to scale of not less than 1:100 showing
gridlines, complete identification of rooms or functional spaces.

v. Elevations, at least four (4), same scale as floor plans showing

gridlines; natural ground to finish grade elevations; floor to floor
heights; door and window marks, type of material and exterior
finishes; adjoining existing structure/s, if any, shown in 'single
hatched lines.

vi. Sections, at least two (2), showing: gridlines; natural ground

and finish level; outline of cut and visible structural parts; doors
and windows properly labeled reflecting the direction of opening;
partitions; built-in cabinets, etc.; identification of rooms and
functional spaces cut by section lines.

vii. Reflected ceiling plan showing: design, location, finishes, and

specifications of materials, lighting fixtures, diffusers, decorations,
air conditioning exhaust and return grills, sprinkler nozzles, if any,
at scale of at least 1:100.

vii Details, in the form of plans, elevations/sections:

(a) Accessible ramps
(b) Accessible stairs
(c) Accessible lifts/elevators
(d) Accessible entrances, corridors and walkways
(e) Accessible functional areas/comfort rooms
(i) Accessible switches, controls
(g) Accessible drinking fountains
(h) Accessible public telephone booths
(i) Accessible audio visual and automatic alarm system
(j) Accessible access symbols and directional signs
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 13
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
(k) Reserved parking for disabled persons
(1) Typical wall/bay sections from ground to roof
(m) Stairs, interior and exterior
(n) Fire escapes/exits
(o) Built-in cabinets/ counters and fixed furniture
(p) All types of partitions

ix. Schedule of Doors and Windows showing their types,

designations/marks, dimensions, materials, and number of sets.

x. Schedule of Finishes, showing in graphic form: surface finishes

specified for floors, ceilings, walls and baseboard trims for all
building spaces per floor level.

xi. Details of other major Architectural Elements. (emphasis

and underscoring supplied)

The dispute arose because previously, under the Old IRR,

particularly Section 3 of the said rules, the aforesaid architectural

documents were prepared, signed and sealed by either civil

engineers or architects. Section 3 of the Old IRR provides:

3.2 Five (5) sets of plans and specifications prepared, signed and
sealed:

a) by a duly licensed architect or civil engineer, in case of

architectural and structural plans;
b) by a duly licensed sanitary engineer or master plumber, in
case of plumbing or sanitary installation plans;
c) by a duly licensed professional electrical engineers, in case
of electrical plans;
d) by a duly licensed professional mechanical engineer, in
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 14
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
case of mechanical plans.

3.2.1 Architectural Documents:

a) Location plan within a two-kilometer radius for commercial,

indusrrial 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.

b) Site development and/or location plan at scale of 1:200M

standard or any convenient scale for large scale development
showing position of building in relation to lot. Existing building
within and adjoining the lot shall be hatched, and distances between
the proposed and existing buildings shall be indicated.

c) Floor Plans at scale of not less than 1:100M

d) Elevation (at least four) at scale of not less than 1:100M

e) Sections (at least two) at scale of 1:100M

f) Foundation Plan at scale of not leas than 1:100M

g) Floor-framing plan at scale of not less than 1:00M

h) Roof-framing plan at scale of not less than 1:100M

i) Details of footing/column at any convenient scale

(emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Petitioners, civil engineers, essentially argue that the

aforesaid plans such as: a) Vicinity Map/ Location Plan, b) Site

CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 15
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 16
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
IV, thereof, which are so irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant
to the laws cited and invoked by the petitioners.

All the assigned errors boll down to the following focal

issues:

1. Whether RA 544 and PD 1096 authorize civil engineers to

sign and seal plans enumerated in Section 302.4 of the Revised
NBC IRR;

2. Whether in. fact there is an overlapping of functions

between architects and civil engineers.

3. Whether RA 9266 or the Architecture Act of 2004

repealed RA 544 of the Civil Engineering Law and PD 1096-the
National Building Code.

4. Whether the trial court erred in ruling that forum

shopping was present in this case.

The Court finds merit in this appeal.

CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 17
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
RA 544 and PD 1096 allow Civil Engineers to Sign and,Seal
Architectural Documents

As lo the first assigned error, the petitioners-appellants argue

that the trial court erred in ruling that RA 544 or the Civil- Engineering
Law, particularly Sections 2 and 23 thereof, does not state in clear and
unequivocal language that civil engineers can prepare, sign and seal
architectural documents.

First, is imperative to identify what documents the law

considers us "architectural documents," The Court notes at the outlet:
that what specific documents are considered, as "architectural
documents" are not spelled out in the Old Architecture Law (RA 545)
nor in the Architecture Act of 2004 (RA 966) but only under the
implementing rules and regulations of the National Building Code. In
other words, while these documents are being labeled as
architectural documents, there appears to be nothing, either in the
old architecture law nor in the 2004 architecture act, to indicate that
these documents are exclusive to architects and can be prepared only
by them except the fact that they are being labeled as such. The
labeling or the enumeration, therefore of the documents specified as
enumeration, therefore, of the documents specified as
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 18
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
architectural in nature in the Revised NBC IRR appears to be
without any basis in the two architecture laws.

Neither can the basis be found in PD 1096 or the National

Building Code. On that score, it bears stressing that the Revised NBC
IRR are merely rules and regulations which seek to Implement PD
1096 which is its enabling law. If the labeling of such documents as
"architectural" in nature is not found in the two architecture laws- RA
545 and RA 9266, nor covered in PD 1096, then the Court is of the
view that the DPWH Secretary may have overstepped its rule making
power when it labeled documents as architectural in nature in the
implementing rules absent any basis in law for such a qualification.
The rule-making power or administrative agencies, it bears stressing,
must be confined to details for regulating the mode or proceedings
to carry into effect the law as it has been enacted, and it cannot be
extended to amend or expand the statutory requirements or to
embrace matters not covered by the statute. Administrative
regulations must always be in harmony with the provisions of the law
because any resulting discrepancy between the two will always be
resolved in favor of the basic law. (Office of the Solicitor General m.
Ayala Land, Inc., GR No. 177056, September 18, 2009)
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 19
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
In any case, comparing Section 302(4) of the disputed Revised
NBC IRR (aforequoted) and Section 3.2.1 of MO No.57 (aforequoted),
architectural document appear to be the following: 1) Location Plan;
2) Site Development Plan; 3) Floor Plans; 4) Elevations; 5) Sections;
6) Foundation Plan; 7) Floor-framing plan; 8) Roof-framing plan; 9)
Details of footing/column; 10) Details of Structural members. From the
foregoing, the Court discerns that what we are considered
architectural documents by the implementing rules and regulations
of the National Building Code are essentially various documents
pertaining to the design of a building or structure.

Now the threshold question to be answered is can civil

engineers prepare plans and specifications pertaining to the design of a
building or structure and sign and seal the same?

The Court answers in the affirmative.

It is true that the same documents enumerated under Section

302(4) of the Revised NBC IRR are not mentioned either in the Civil
Engineering Law or RA 544. However, RA 544 explicitly
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 20
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
provides that the practice of civil engineering includes the
designing of buildings.

Section 2 and 23 of RA 544 provides as follows:

i
Section 2. Definition of terms. (a) The practice of
civil engineering within the meaning and intent of this Act shall
embrace services in the form of consultation, design,
preparation of plans, specifications, estimates, erection,
installation and supervision of the construction of streets,
bridges, highways, railroads, airports and hangars,
portworks, canals, river and shore improvements,
lighthouses, and dry docks; buildings, fixed structures for
irrigation, flood protection, drainage, water supply, and
sewerage works; demolition of permanent structures; and
tunnels. The enumeration of any other work requiring civil
engineering knowledge and application.

xxx xxx xxx

Section 23. Preparation of plans and supervision of

construction by registered civil engineer. It shall be
unlawful for any person to order or otherwise cause the
construction, reconstruction, or alteration of any building or
structure intended for public gathering or assembly such as
theatres, cinematographs, stadia, churches or structures of
like nature, and any other engineering structures mentioned
in section two of this Act unless the designs, plans, and
specifications of same have been prepared under the
responsible charge of, and signed and sealed by a registered
civil engineer, and unless the construction, reconstruction and/or
alteration thereof are executed under the responsible charge and
direct supervision of a civil engineer. Plans and designs of
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 21
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
structures must be approved as provided by law or ordinance of a
city or province or municipality where the said structure is to be
constructed. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Clear from the aforequoted sections of the Civil Engineering

Law is the express authoritv granted to civil engineers to render
services of designing as well as the preparation of plans and
specifications for various buildings.

Private respondents United Architects of the Philippines (UAP)

argue in their appeal brief that the term "building" as it is being used in
sections 2 and 23 of RA 544 should be interpreted to mean that it is in
some way connected with waterworks and that it precludes buildings
for residential purposes and those not intended for public gathering.
Thus, appellee UAP insists that the express granted to civil engineers
to prepare and sign documents is limited to the aforementioned
structures following the principle of noscitur a sociis or associated
words.

The Court does not agree.

It is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that in interpreting

the meaning and scope of a term used in the law, a
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 22
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
careful review of the whole law involved, as well as the intendment of
the law, must be made. (Alpha Investigation and Security Agency, Inc.
vs. NLRC, 339 Phil. 40, 44 (1997))

In the present case, the Court notes Section 15 2(c) of RA 544

provides as follows:

Section 15. Exemption from registration-

xxx xxx xxx

(2) Any person residing in the Philippines may make

plans or specifications for any of the following:

(a) Any building in chartered cities or in towns with

building ordinances, not exceeding the space
requirement specified therein, requiring the services
of a civil engineer.

xxx xxx xxx

(c) Provided, however. That: there shall be nothing in

this Act that will prevent any person from
constructing his own (wooden or light material)
residential house, utilizing the services of a person or
persons required for that purpose, without the use of
a civil engineer, as long as he does not violate local
ordinances of the place where the building is to be
constructed. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Clearly, considering that the said provision allows a person,

not a registered civil engineer, to make plans and specifications
for any building so long as it' does not exceed the space
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 23
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
requirements and to construct a residential house without the use of a
civil engineer so long as it is made of light and wooden materials, it
follows then that the general rule is that the plans and specifications for
the construction of any building, including a residential house, may
require the use of a civil engineer unless it is exempted from doing so.
Hence, to this Court it is not correct to interpret the term building, as
it is being used in RA 544, to mean that buildings for residential
purposes and those not intended for public gathering are outside the
scope of the civil engineers authority.

Moreover, it does not make sense to the Court that civil engineers
would not have the authority to prepare plans and specifications for
residential buildings and structures not intended for public gathering or
assembly when the civil engineer has the authority to prepare designs,
plans and specifications for structures intended for public gathering or
assembly such as theatres, shopping malls, office buildings, schools,
airport terminals etc.. As it is, the Court finds no plausible and rational
explanation as to why civil engineers would not have the expertise to
prepare plans for residential buildings when it has the expertise to
prepare plans for a large building such as a shopping mall.
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 24
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
There should be no distinction in the application of the law where
none is indicated. (Lo Cham vs. Ocampo, 77 Phil, 636, (1946) Where the
law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish. Ubi lex mon distinguit
nec nos distinguere debemos. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. COA,
218 SCRA 203, (1993))

That civil engineers are allowed to design buildings is

further shown in Section 308 of PD No. 1096 or the National
Building Code which provides as follows:

"Section. 308. Inspection and Supervision of Work. The

owner of the Building who is issued or granted a building
permit under this Code shall engage the services of a duly
licensed architect or civil engineer to undertake the full time
inspection and supervision of the construction work.

Such archtitect or civil engineer may or may not be the

same architect or civil engineer who is responsible for the
design of the building.

It is understood however that in either case, the designing

architect or civil engineer is not precluded from conducting
inspection of the construction work to check and determine
compliance with the plans and specifications of the building as
submitted.

There shall be kept at the jobsite at all times a logbook

wherein the actual progress of construction including tests
conducted, weather conditions and other pertinent data are to
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 25
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
be recorded.

Upon completion of the construction, the said licensed

architect or civil engineer shall submit the logbook, duly signed and
sealed, to the Building Official. He shall also prepare and submit a
Certificate of Completion of the project stating that the construction of
building conforms to the provisions of this Code as well as with the
approved plans and specifications.

That civil engineers are allowed to prepare, sign and seal

plans and specifications pertaining to architectural and structural
plans can also be seen in Section 302 of PD 1096 which provides
as follows:

Section 302. Application for permits. In order to

obtain a building permit, the applicant shall file an application
therefor in writing and in the prescribed form from the office of
the Building Official. Every application shall provide at least
the following information:

(1) A description of the work to be covered by the permit

applied for;

(2) Certified true copy of the TCT covering the lot in which the
proposed work is to be done. If the applicant is not the
registered owner, in addition to the TCT, a copy of the
contract of least shall be submitted;

(3) The use or occupancy for which the proposal work is

intended;

(4) Estimated cost of the proposed work.

CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 26
DECISION
x --------------------------------x

To be submitted together with such application are at least

five sets of corresponding plans and specifications
prepared, signed and sealed by a duly licensed architect or
civil engineer, in case of architectural and structural plans,
mechanical engineer in case of mechanical plans, and by a
registered electrical engineer in case of electrical 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.

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
Code14 (emphasis supplied)

However, a review of other official copies of the National

Building Code, particularly the copy15 stored in the National

_____________
13 Record Vol. II pp.816-825
14 Record Vol. II p.822
15 Record Vol. III pp.1406-1478
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 27
DECISION
x --------------------------------x

Library, which also bears the signature of then President

Ferdinand E. Marcos, would reveal the contrary.16 Obviously,
therefore, the copy that was published in the Official Gazette
contained a clerical or typographical error or a misprint as it
renders the provision meaningless and inoperable since it left out
the plans and specifications of the architect and the civil engineer.

Should the copy of PD 1096 as it appears in the Official

Gazette, flawed as it may be, be the controlling copy?

The Court does not think so.

Considering that the typographical error is manifestly

obvious in view of the fact that the different official copies of the
same law are totally opposed with one another, prudence dictates
that the version that renders the statute operable or the one that
gives the statute sensible meaning and purpose be the one preferred.
To this Court, considering that the version published in the Official
Gazette contains a clerical/typographical error or a misprint, resort
must be made with the other official copies of the law, particularly
the copy stored in the National Library.

16
Record Vol. III p. 1421
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 28
DECISION
x --------------------------------x

Overlapping of Functions

It has of course been argued in this case that civil engineers

are not simply qualified or that they do not have expertise in
designing. Intervenors-appellees UAP vehemently argue that the
civil engineering curriculum does not have any subjects pertaining
to architectural design or planning. However, even assuming it to
be true that civil-engineering does not have any subjects pertaining
to architectural design, the Court is of the view that such omission
does not mean that civil engineers are not qualified to design
buildings but rather that in terms of designing structures with
aesthetics in mind architects would have an advantage over civil
engineers. To reiterate, it is clear from the Civil Engineering Law
and the National Building Code, as discussed above, that the
practice of civil engineering also includes the design of buildings.

It cannot be denied that architecture and civil engineering

are professions that are both engaged in the design and
construction of structures and often had overlapping functions. In
fact, until modern times there was no clear distinction between
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 29
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
civil engineering and architecture, and the term engineer and
architect were mainly geographical variations referring to the same
person, often used interchangeably. (as per
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_engineering citing The
Architecture of the Italian Renaissance by Jacob Burckhardt ISBN
0-8052-1082-2)

In fact, this overlapping of function that the civil engineers

could prepare plans and specifications that were also prepared by
architects could be clearly seen in Section 12 of the Old
Architecture Law (RA 545). As explicitly provided in the said
section:

"Section 12. Registration of architects required. In

order to safeguard life, health and property, no person shall
practice architecture in this country or engage in preparing
plans, specifications or preliminary data for the erection or
alteration of any building located within the boundaries of
this country, except in this last case when he is a duly
registered civil engineer, or use the title Architect, or
display or use any titile, sign, card, advertisement, or other
device to indicate that such person practices or offers to
practice architecture, or is an architect, unless such person shall
have secured from the examining body a certificate of
registration in the manner hereinafter provided and shall
thereafter comply with the provisions of the laws of the
Philippines governing the registration and licensing of
architects. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 30
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
The overlapping of functions between a civil engineer and an
architect was also clearly seen in Section 3.2 of the Old IRR which
allowed either a duly licensed architect or civil engineer to prepare,
sign and seal architectural and structural plans. In fact, the
overlapping of functions between professions is clearly recognized
under the Revised NBC IRR which states in Section 302.317
architectural interior/interior design documents can be signed either
by architects or by interior designers.

If civil engineers were allowed to prepare, sign and seal

documents that were labeled as architectural documents under the
Old IRR, why then the sudden change in the Revised NBC IRR?

In the appealed decision, the trial court held that the Civil
Engineering Law (RA544) and the National Building Code (PD
1096) were deemed to have been repealed or modified accordingly.

________________________________

"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.I. and III.2):
b. Architect, in case of architectural documents; in case of architectural interior/interior design
documents, either an architect or interior designer may sign;
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 31
DECISION
x --------------------------------x

by the Architectural Act of 2004 (RA 9266).

The Court cannot agree.

RA 544 and PD 1096 cannot be repealed by RA 9266

First, the Court finds no such intent to expressly repeal RA

544 or PD 9266. It is true that RA 9266 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
provision of RA 9266. However, settled is the rule that a
declaration in a stature, 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 casem RA 544 and PD 1096 were not specifically mentioned in
the repealing clause of RA 9266.

Second, the Court cannot consider RA 544 and PD 1096 as

having been impliedly repealed by RA 9266. Elementary is the

_______________________
18
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.
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 32
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
rule that repeal of laws should be made dear and expressed. Repeals
by implication are not favored as laws are presumed to be with
deliberation and full knowledge of all laws existing on the subject.
(Government of San Pablo, Laguna m. Reyes, 305SCRA 353
(1999)) Such repeals are not favored for a law cannot be deemed
repealed unless it is clearly manifest that the legislature so intended
it. (Initia, Jr. vs. Commission on Audit, 306 SCRA 593,(1999)) The
failure to add a specific repealing clause indicates that the intent
was not to repeal any existing law, unless an irreconcilable
inconsistency and repugnancy exist in the terms of the new and old
laws. (ibid)

In the present case, the Court finds no such inconsistency or

repugnancy between RA 9266 and RA 544 and PD 1096. In fact the
aforesaid laws are different from each other since they govern
inherently different subject matters. RA 9266 is a special law which
governs the practice of architecture while RA 544 is the special law
governing the practice of civil engineering and PD 1096 is the law
instituting a National Building Code. Hence, the Court is of the
RA 9266 can only repeal the old law governing the practice of
architecture or RA 545 and not RA 544 which governs the practice
of civil engineering. Neither can RA
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 33
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
9266 repeal PD 1096 which is totally unrelated to RA 9266.

The trial court further ruled that the explanatory note of RA

9266 reveals an evident intent to delineate the rights of civil
engineers to prepare, sign and seal building plans. However, an
explanatory note cannot be used as justification to read a meaning
that does not appear, nor is reflected, in the language of a statute,
being written only by the author/proponent of the bill and a mere
expression of the authors views and reasons for the proposed
legislation and may not accordingly override the clear legislative
intent as expressed in the statute itself. (see People vs. Garcia, 85
Phil 657 (1950); Chong Yung Fa vs. Gianzon, 97 SCRA 913
(1955); and Guzman vs. Municipality of Taytay, 65 Phil 340
(1938))

In this case, it is the considered view of the Court that the

clear legislative intent as expressed in Section 4319 of RA 9266 is
that the said law shall not be construed to affect or prevent the
practice of any other legally recognized profession. It is
important to note at this point that civil engineers, in the exercise of
their legally recognized profession, have been signing and sealing
the so called architectural documents which include the
______________________
19
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.
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 34
DECISION
x --------------------------------x

Vicinity Map/Location Plan, Site Development Plan/ Perspective,

Floor Plans, Elevations, Sections, Reflected Ceiling plans and the
like. As previously discussed, the civil engineers were expressly
given such authority to prepare, sign and seal these building
documents under PD 1096 and the Old IRR. Hence, the practice of
civil engineering cannot be affected or prevented by RA 9266.

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

As explained by the Supreme Court in Young vs. John Keng

Seng, G.R. No. 143464, March 05, 2003:
"It is said that forum shopping is committed by a party
________________________________
20
scc par.90,p.61 Appellees brief for UAP (Rollo p. 241)
21
scc Order, dated July 18, 2006 (Record Vol. III pp.1513-l514)
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 35
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum, seeks
another court, other than by appeal or the special civil action of
certiorari. More accurately, however, forum shopping is the
institution of two or more suits in different courts, either
simultaneously or successively, in order to ask the courts to
rule on the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or
substantially the same reliefs. It is an act of malpractice that is
prohibited and condemned because it trifles with the courts and
abuses their processes. It degrades the administration of justice
and adds to the already congested court dockets. (emphasis
and underscoring supplied)

And in Briones vs. Henson-Cruz, G.R. No. 159130, August

22, 2008:

"Forum shopping LS the act of a litigant who

repetitively availed of several judicial remedies in different
courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially
founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts
and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues
either pending in or already resolved adversely by some other
court to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision
if not in one court, then in another. It is directly addressed and
prohibited under section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, and is signaled by the presence of the following
requisites: (1) identity of parties, or at least such parties who
represent the same interests in both actions, (2) identity of the
two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in
the pending case, regardless of which party is successful,
would amount to res judicata in the other. In simpler terms, the
test to determine whether a party has violated the rule against
forum shopping is where the elements of litis pendentia are
present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to
res judicata in the other. (emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 36
DECISION
x --------------------------------x
Simply put, considering the withdrawal and consequent
dismissal of Civil Case No. Q-05-55273, the evils sought to be
avoided and prevented in forum shopping are already non-existent.
Hence, it cannot be said that forum shopping exists in this case.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appeal is

hereby GRANTED. The appealed Decision, dated January 29,
2008 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one
entered as follows:

a) Sections 302.3 and 4 of the Revised Implementing Rules

and Regulations of the National Building Code are hereby declared
null and void for being contrary to Republic Act 544 and PD 1096
insofar as they prevent civil engineering from exercising their right
to prepare, sign and seal plans and designs of buildings such as
Vicinity Map/Location Plan, Site Development Plan, Perspective,
Floor Plans, Elevations, Sections, Reflected Ceiling Plans and the
like;

b) Civil engineers are hereby declared to have the right to

CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 37
DECISION
x --------------------------------x

prepare, sign and seal plans and specifications enumerated in

Section 302.4 of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations
of the National Building Code for submission to Building Officials
as provided for under Republic Act No. 544 and Presidential
Decree No. 1096.

SO ORDERED.
ORIGINAL SIGNED
ROMEO F. BARZA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
NOEL G. TIJAM
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Ninth Division

ORIGINAL SIGNED
EDWIN D. SORONGON
Associate Justice
CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 38
DECISION
x --------------------------------x

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.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
NOEL G. TIJAM
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Ninth Division