Case Digest (G.R. No. 200015)
Facts:
Department of Public Works and Highways v. Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, Inc. and Leo Cleto Gamolo; G.R. No. 200015; United Architects of the Philippines v. Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, Inc. and Leo Cleto Gamolo; G.R. No. 205846, March 15, 2023, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.The consolidated petitions arose after the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) promulgated the 2004 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (2004 Revised Implementing Rules) of Presidential Decree No. 1096 (the National Building Code) on October 29, 2004, which, among other things, in Section 302 limited preparation, signing, and sealing of certain documents listed under Section 302(4) to architects. Shortly after, respondents Leo Cleto Gamolo and the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, Inc. (PICE) filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila (the Gamolo Petition), seeking declaratory relief and injunction to nullify Section 302(3)–(4) and to allow civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal the listed documents. A separate but similar action (the Cruz Petition) was filed in the RTC of Quezon City.
The RTC, Branch 22, Manila, in a January 29, 2008 decision dismissed respondents’ petition and upheld the validity of Section 302(3)–(4), finding no express authorization in Republic Act No. 544 (the Civil Engineering Law) or in the official version of the National Building Code for civil engineers to prepare and sign the enumerated architectural plans; it also held respondents’ reliance on a different (Atty. Foz) text of Section 302 to be misplaced and found that RA 9266 (the Architecture Act of 2004) had modified or repealed earlier provisions. Reconsideration was denied on May 4, 2009.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in a January 5, 2012 decision (CA-G.R. CV No. 93917), reversed the RTC and declared Section 302(3)–(4) of the 2004 Revised Implementing Rules void insofar as they prevented civil engineers from preparing, signing, and sealing the documents enumerated in Section 302(4); the CA concluded civil engineers’ authority flowed from Section 2 and Section 23 of RA 544 and from PD 1096 (resolving discrepancies among versions by treating the Official Gazette copy as containing a clerical error). The CA also found no repeal by RA 9266 and rejected forum-shopping charges.
Dissatisfied, DPWH filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) before the Supreme Court; the United Architects of the Philippines (UAP) separately petitioned and later moved to consolidate its petition with DPWH’s, which the C...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondents commit forum shopping?
- Are Section 302(3) and (4) of the 2004 Revised Implementing Rules valid?
- Subsidiarily: (a) Does PD 1096 (Section 302) authorize civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal architectural plans? (b) Does RA 544 permit civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal architectural plans? (c) Did RA 9266 modify or repeal RA 544 and the National Building Code insofar as they permit civil engineers to pre...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)