93917 ca decision

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESCOURT OF APPEALS

MANILA

NINTH DIVISION

PHILIPPINE INSTITUTE OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC., and LEO CLETO GAMOLO, Petitioners-Appellants,

-versus-

THE HONORABLE HERMOGENES EBDANE, JR., in his capacity as SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Respondent-Appellee,

UNITED ARCHITECTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, Intervenor-Appellee

CA-G.R. CV No. 93917 Members:

TIJAM, N. G., Chairperson BARZA, R. F., and SORONGON, E. D., JJ. PROMULGATED: JAN. 5/12 ___________________

x ================================================ x

D E CI S I O N

CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 2D E C I S I O Nx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

BARZA, R., F., J.:

Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision,1 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

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

their seals on plans for submission to Building Officials as a

1 Rollo pp. 90-1202 Record Vol. I pp. 2-11


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 that for several decades Building Officials have

accepted and approved these plans which were prepared and

signed/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 Revised NBC IRR promulgated by the

Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), plans that

were previously prepared and 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,

representatives and assigns, from implementing and carrying out


the questioned provisions in the subject IRR.3

In its Answer,4 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,

2005. Echoing the arguments of the respondent Secretary, the UAP

3 see Order dated May 25, 2005 (Rollo Vol. I pp. 83-85)4 Record Vol. I pp. 121-1395 Record Vol. I pp. 239-2816 see Motion for Leave to Intervene and Admit Attached Answer/Comment in Intervention (Record

Vol. I pp. 200- 2107 Record Vol. I pp. 433-434


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 said decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby

8 see Order dated January 10, 2006 (Rollo Vol. II p. 556)9 Record Vol. III pp. 1217-1247


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 and 23 thereof, does not state in clear 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, said 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 petitioners are irreconcilably inconsistent

and repugnant 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 latter law. Finally, the

trial court determined that forum shopping was present in this

case since the petition for declaratory relief and injunction filed by

the petitioners was substantially identical to the petition filed by


Felipe 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 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 see Motion for Reconsideration (Record Vol. III pp. 1248-1268)11 Record Vol. III pp. 1622-1625)


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


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 Law, which was passed in 1950. RA 544 governs the

practice of 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 that 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


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. Florante 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 IRR, 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 xxxSection 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.


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 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.


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 levels; 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.

viii. 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(f) 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


(k) Reserved parking for disabled persons(l) 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 either by 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 engineer, in case of electrical plans;

d) by a duly licensed professional mechanical engineer,


in case of mechanical plans.

3.2.1 Architectural Documents:

a)Location plan within a two-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.

b)Site development and/or location plan at scale of 1:200 M standard or any convenient scale for large scale development showing position of building in relation to lot. Existing buildings 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 less than 1:100M

g)Floor-framing plan at scale of not less than 1:100M

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

i)Details of footing/column at any convenient scale

j)Details of structural members 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


Development Plan, c) Perspective, d) Floor Plan, e) Elevations, f)

Sections and the like, that are to be submitted to building officials

as a requirement for a building permit, are plans that were

previously prepared and signed/sealed by civil engineers or

architects under the 1977 IRR. However, under the new revised

IRR, the said plans 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."

The architects, on the other hand, intervenor-appellees in

this case, as well as the public respondent-appellee Secretary of

Public Works and Highways, argue otherwise and deny that the

subject provisions in the Revised NBC IRR are contrary to existing

laws. They argue 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.

All the assigned errors boil 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.


RA 544 and PD 1096 allow Civil Engineers to Sign and Seal "Architectural" Documents

As to 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, it is imperative to identify what documents the law

considers as "architectural documents." The Court notes at the

outset 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

9266) 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


"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 of

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 vs.

Ayala Land Inc., GR No. 177056, September 18, 2009)


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 documents" 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 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


provides that the practice of civil engineering includes the

designing of buildings.

Section 2 and 23 of RA 544 provides as follows:

"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 work in this section shall not be construed as excluding 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 theaters, 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 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 authority 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 grant 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

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

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

engineer's 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

theaters, 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.

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 non 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 architect 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 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 on 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 on 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 lease shall be submitted;

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


(4) Estimated cost of the proposed work.

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, 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 Code.”14 (emphasis supplied)

However, a review of other official copies of the National

13 Record Vol. II pp. 816-82514 Record Vol. II p.822


Building Code, particularly the copy15 stored in the National

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 15 Record Vol. III pp. 1406-147816 Record Vol. III p. 1421


law, particularly the copy stored in the National Library.

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 the 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

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 title, 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)


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 that 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 (RA 544) and the National Building Code (PD

17 “SECTION 302. Application for Permitsxxx xxx xxx3. Five (5) sets of survey plans, design plans, specifications and other documents prepared, signedand sealed over the printed names of the duly licensed and registered professionals (Figs. III.1.and III.2.):xxx xxx xxxb. Architect, in case of architectural documents; in case ofarchitectural interior/interior design documents, either an architect or interior designer maysign;”


1096) were deemed to have been repealed or modified accordingly

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 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.

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

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.


having been impliedly repealed by RA 9266. Elementary is the

rule that repeal of laws should be made clear and expressed.

Repeals by implication are not favored as laws are presumed to be

passed with deliberation and full knowledge of all laws existing

on the subject. (City Government of San Pablo, Laguna vs. Reyes, 305

SCRA 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. (Intia, 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 view that 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

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 author's 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 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.


sealing the so called architectural documents which include the

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: 20 see par. 90, p.61Appellee's Brief for UAP (Rollo p. 241)21 see Order, dated July 18, 2006 (Record Vol. III pp. 1513-1514)


"It is said that forum shopping is committed by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum, seeks another opinion in 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 is 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 rights asserted and the relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts, and (3) 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)

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 engineers 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

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.

ROMEO F. BARZA Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

NOEL G. TIJAMAssociate Justice

Chairperson, Ninth Division

EDWIN D. SORONGONAssociate Justice


C E R T I F I C A T I O N

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