Under Sections 302.3 and 302.

4 of the revised Natl Buildong Code IRR promulgated by DPWH, plans

should be signed exclusively by architects,

According to this, it’s contrary to the existing laws particularly RA 544 or The CE Law and PD1096 of the
NBCP.

The petitioners (CE) filed an appeal inputing the following errors to the trial court:

 The trial court made a mistake declaring that the CE Law and the NBC does not authorize CE to
prepare, sign, and seal plans (….arki plans, sxn plans, vicinity)
 The trial court failed to recognize that there is overlapping of functions between CE and arki
 Whether or not the honorable trial court quo erred in declaring that the CE Law and NBC in so
far as they authorized CE to sign building plans were repealed by RA 9266(Arki LAW)
 The court erred in not finding that serious damage and prejudice will be caused to CE w/c
constitutes deprivation of their right to substantive (meaning firm) due process
 The court erred in ruling that there was forum shopping

4 LAWS:

1. Ce law – RA 544
2. Arki Law – RA 9266
3. PD1096 – NBCP
4. Revised IRR of the NBC

1ST ARGUMENT:

Imperative to find the documents the law considers as “Arki docs”. The court notes that what
specific documents are considered are NOT Spelled out in the old arki law(RA545) nor in the new.
But only under the IRR of the NBC. In other words, although it’s labeled as “archi documents”, there
appears to be nothing, either in old or new aril law, that indicates that these documents are
EXCLUSIVE for architects and can be prepared only by them. The labeling or the enumeration of
documents specified as “arkiral” in nature in the revised NBC IRR appears to be without basis in the
two arki laws.

Neither the bassis cannot be found in PD1096 or the NBC. On tha score, it bears stressing that the
revised NBC IRR are merely rules and regulations w/c seeks to implement PD1096 which is its
enabling law. If the labeling of docs is not found in two arki laws, nor PD1096, then the court is of
the view that DPWH may have overstepped its rule making power when it’s labled as arki plans.
“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”.
 THE COURT AGREES BC RA 544 EXPLICITLY SAYS “designing of buildings” and “preparation of plans”.

ARKI DOCUMENTS:

1. LOCATION PLAN
2. SITE DEV PLAN
3. FLOOR PLAN
4. ELEV
5. SXN
6. FOUNDATION PLAN
7. FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
8. ROOF FRAMING PLAN
9. DETAILS OF FOOTING AND COLUMN
10. DETAIL OF STRUCTURAL PLAN

Render services of designing as well as preparation of plans and specs for various buildings

Private resp ARKIS said that “building” should be interpreted as “waterworks” and precludes building
for residential purposes and those not intended for public gathering. THE COURT DOES NOT AGREE.

Cardinal rule in statutory construction that in interpreting meaning and scope of a term used in the
law,a careful review of the WHOLE LAW must be made.

Any person can make any building as long as it does not exceed the space requirements that’s why it’s
not right to say that “building” is just for residential and those not intend for public gathering.

WHERE THE LAW DOES NOT EXTINGUISH, COURT DOES NOT EXTINGUISH

OVERLAPPING OF FUNCTIONS

The arkis argue that the Civil Eng Curriculum does not have subjects pertaining to arki design and
planning however even the CE does not take arki design, the court views that such omission does not
mean that CE are still qualified to design but in terms of design with aesthetics the arkis have advantage
over CE.

RA 544 AND PD1096 cannot be repealed by RA9266

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 terms of old ans new laws.

The court does not find any inconsistency between the 3 Laws. In fact it’s different from each other
since they govern different subject matters.
RA 9266 governs practice of architecrure

RA 544 special law governing the practice of CE

PD1096 – law instituting NBC

SECTION 43 OF RA9266 – Law shall not construes to affect or prevent the practice of any other legally
recognized profession

No Forum Shopping

Forum shopping was not present

It is true that the Civil Case No Q-05-55273 pending before Branch 219 RTC of QC was similarly
questioning the assailed provision in the Revised IRR NBC. However court notes that the said case was
withdrawn by the parties and dismissed by the trial court.

Forum shopping – is commited by a party who, having received an adverse judgment in one forum and
seeks another opinion in another court.

- Is the institution of 2 or more suits in different courts either simultaneously or successively in

order task courts to rule on the same or related cause and/or to grant the same or substantially
same reliefs

APPEAL IS GRANTED

A.) Sections 302.3 and 4 of the revised IRR of the NBC are hereby declared null and void for being
contrary to RA544 and PD1096 as they prevent CE from exercising the right to prepare sign and
sseal plans and designs of buildings
B.) CE are hereby declared to have the right to prepa, sign, abd seal plans and specs enumerated in
Section 302.4 of revised IRR of the NBCfor submission to Building Official as provided for under
RA544 abd PD1096