PICE, Inc. v.

Ebdane
C.A.-G.R. CV No. 93917, January 5, 2012
Tijam, N.G., Barza, R.F., Sorongon, E.D.:

FACT:

Republic Act 544, otherwise known as the “Civil Engineering Law”, was passed in 1950. It governs
the practice of civil engineering in the country. In said law, it is provided that civil engineers are granted
the authority to render services of designing as well as the preparation of plans and specifications for
various buildings. On the other hand, Republic Act 9266, also known as the “Architecture Act of 2004”
was passed and amended R.A. 545 or the “Old Architecture Law” for brevity. It now stands as the
governing law for the practice of architecture in the Philippines. Moreover, there also exists a law which
institutes a national building code in the country, namely being Presidential Decree No. 1096 or “The
National Building Code of the Philippines” with Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations promulgated
by then Acting Secretary of Public Works and Highways, Hon. Fiorante Soriquez back in 2004. It is held in
the Revised NBS-IRR that plans previously prepared and signed/sealed by civil engineers or architects are
now to be signed exclusively by architects. Petitioners question this provision of the Revised NBC-IRR and
filed a petition for declaratory relief and a temporary restraining order against then Honorable
Hermogenes Ebdane, Jr., in his capacity as Secretary of Public Works and Highways.

Petitioners contend the inconsistencies arising from the latter law on the grounds that:

 The Revised NBC-IRR prevents civil engineers, and members of the Philippine Institute of Civil
Engineers, Inc. (also known as PICE, for brevity), in exercising their legally recognized
profession
 Civil engineers are granted authority and have long been preparing, signing and affixing their
seals on plans, including so-called “architectural documents” for submission to building
officials as a requirement for a building permit.

However, United Architects of the Philippines (also known as UAP, for brevity) entered the fray
as Intervenor whose Answer/Comment in Intervention was granted by the RTC. The UAP argued that “The
Architecture Act of 2004” was purposely drafted to prevent the practice of Civil Engineers of drafting and
signing architectural documents on the grounds of lack of competence/expertise thereof. Moreover,
Intervenors alleged that the Petitioners’ case should be dismissed, citing Forum Shopping, due to the fact
that a similar case was filed by civil engineers before a different branch of the RTC.

Trial court finds that R.A. 544 and P.D. 1096 do not expressly state or give civil engineers the
authority to prepare and sign/seal architectural documents. Moreover, the trial court also deemed
aforementioned laws to be repealed by R.A. 9266, thereby rendering provisions invoked by Petitioners to
be irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant with the provisions of the repealing law. Lastly, the trial court
determined the existence of forum shopping as the said case filed by Petitioners was found to be
substantially identical to the petition filed by Cruz and Consunji before Branch 219 of the RTC of Quezon
City, docketed as Civil Case No. 05-55273. Petitioners then filed for reconsideration but was denied by the
trial court.

However, determined Petitioners filed an appeal to the next higher court.

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT the honorable trial court erred in the rulings promulgated

RULING:

The Court affirms that there were errors in the promulgated decisions of the RTC. The Court
thereby Granted the appeal of the Petitioners and ruled the appealed decision as Reversed and Set Aside
on the grounds that what are considered “architectural documents” by the NBC-IRR are essentially various
documents pertaining to the design of a building or structure. Although the same “architectural
documents” are not mentioned in either R.A. 544 or P.D. 1096, it is explicitly provided in R.A. 544 that the
practice of civil engineering includes the designing of buildings. Sections of the Civil Engineering Law holds
express authority granted to civil engineers to render services of designing as well as the preparation of
plans and specifications for various buildings. Therefore, the Court declared civil engineers to have the
right to prepare, sign, and seal plans and specifications enumerated in the Revised NBC-IRR for submission
to Building Officials as provided for under R.A. 544 and P.D. 1096. Moreover, the Court cannot agree that
R.A. 9266 repealed R.A. 544 and P.D. 1096, as there was no express and specific mention of the
aforementioned laws in its repealing clause. Hence, the Court finds no such inconsistency and repugnancy
between R.A. 9266 and R.A. 544 and P.D. 1096, since these laws are different from each other due to
inherently different subject matters they govern. Lastly, the Court finds no such existence of forum
shopping, considering that the Civil Case filed and was found to be similar with the Petitioners’ case was
subsequently withdrew and dismissed. Considering such circumstance, the evils sought to be avoided and
prevented in forum shopping are already non-existent.