Case Summary (G.R. No. 200015)
Petitioners and Respondents
• DPWH and UAP seek reinstatement of the trial court’s decision upholding the validity of Section 302(3)–(4).
• PICE and Gamolo challenge that provision as void for contravening existing engineering and building‐code statutes.
Key Dates
• March 17, 2004 – RA 9266 enacted; effective April 10, 2004
• October 29, 2004 – DPWH promulgates 2004 Revised Implementing Rules (Section 302)
• January 29, 2008 – RTC upholds Section 302; denies civil‐engineer authority over architectural documents
• January 5, 2012 – CA reverses RTC, declaring Section 302(3)–(4) void and affirming civil-engineer rights
• June 8, 2013 – SC consolidates DPWH and UAP petitions
• March 15, 2023 – Supreme Court issues final decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (due process; separation of powers)
• PD 1096, National Building Code (1977)
• RA 544, Civil Engineering Law (1960)
• RA 545 as amended, Architecture Law (1950s-1960s)
• RA 9266, Architecture Act of 2004 (special law on practice of architecture)
Procedural History
Respondents filed a declaratory‐injunction petition in Manila RTC to void Section 302(3)–(4) of the 2004 Revised Implementing Rules, claiming violation of RA 544 and PD 1096. RTC dismissed the petition and upheld the provision. On appeal, the CA reversed, voiding Section 302(3)–(4) and declaring civil engineers entitled to prepare and seal the enumerated “architectural” documents. DPWH and UAP then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
Statutory Publication and Official Text
The Court reaffirmed that only the Official Gazette publication of PD 1096 constitutes the controlling text. Variants in other compilations cannot amend or supplement published law. Errors in the Gazette’s version must be left uncorrected by judicial interpolation; courts may not supply unpublished words or rely on non–Gazette copies.
Authority Under PD 1096 and RA 544
• Section 308 of PD 1096 authorizes full-time supervision of construction by either architect or civil engineer, but does not grant civil engineers carte blanche over architectural documents.
• RA 544 defines the civil-engineering practice to encompass plans and designs for certain structures and limits mandatory civil-engineer involvement to buildings for public assembly (Section 23), with exemptions under Section 15.
• Harmonizing RA 544’s Sections 2, 15, and 23, civil engineers may prepare, sign, and seal plans for any building, except those expressly exempt or when architecture law interposes.
Impact of RA 9266
RA 9266 expressly mandates that “all architectural plans, designs, specifications, drawings, and architectural documents relative to the construction of a building shall bear the seal and signature only of an architect registered and licensed under [RA 9266].” While RA 9266’s repealing clause expressly revokes RA 545, an implied repeal of RA 544 is warranted to the extent its provisions conflict irreconcilably with RA 9266’s ex
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 200015)
Facts of the Case
- On March 17, 2004, Republic Act No. 9266 (“Architecture Act of 2004”) was signed into law and took effect on April 10, 2004.
- On October 29, 2004, DPWH Acting Secretary Soriquez promulgated the 2004 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Presidential Decree No. 1096 (National Building Code), including Section 302(3)–(4) limiting preparation, signing, and sealing of “architectural documents” to licensed architects (and interior designers for interior design).
- Respondents Gamolo and the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers filed a petition in the Manila RTC seeking to void Section 302(3)–(4) and to authorize civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal the documents listed under Section 302(4).
- A similar petition was filed in Quezon City RTC by Cruz and Consunji; UAP intervened in the Manila case.
Procedural History
- Manila RTC (Jan. 29, 2008): Dismissed respondents’ petition and upheld Section 302(3)–(4) as valid.
- Respondents’ motion for reconsideration denied (May 4, 2009).
- Court of Appeals (Jan. 5, 2012): Reversed the RTC, declared Section 302(3)–(4) void, and held civil engineers may prepare, sign, and seal the enumerated documents.
- CA denied UAP’s reconsideration (Feb. 13, 2013).
- DPWH and UAP separately filed Petitions for Review before the Supreme Court, later consolidated (June 8, 2013).
Issues Presented
- Whether respondents committed forum shopping.
- Whether Section 302(3) and (4) of the 2004 Revised Implementing Rules is valid, specifically:
• Does the National Building Code authorize civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal architectural documents?
• Does R.A. 544 permit civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal architectural plans?
• Did R.A. 9266 modify or repeal R.A. 544 and the National Building Code?
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
- Found no authority in R.A. 544 or the official National Building Code to justify civil engineers’ preparation, signing, and sealing of architectural plans.
- Held that respondent’s reliance on a non-Official Gazette version of Section 302 was misplaced.
- Determined R.A. 9266 impliedly repealed R.A. 544 and the National Building Code due to inconsistency.
- Ruled respondents engaged in forum shopping when they filed the Cruz petition during pendency of the Gamolo petition.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
- Declared Section 302(3)–(4) void for being contrary to R.A. 544 and P.D. 10