PHIL INSTITUTE OF CIVIL ENGINEERS AND GAMOLO v. HON.
EBDANE
C.A. G.R. C.V.-NO. 93917 DECISION, 5 JAN 2012 * MFR denied in a RESOLUTION 13 FEB 2013)
BRAZA, ROMEO ponente
FACTS:
• May 2005 petitioners Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, Inc.,
(PICE) and Leo Cleto Gamolo, general counsel of PICE, filed a
Petition 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.
• PETITIONER argued in the RTC: 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 requirement for a building permit.
o 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.
o They asserted that for several decades [since 1977 promulgation
of PD 1096] 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.
o However, under Sections 302.3 and 302.4 of the Revised NBC
IRR recently 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.
o 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."
• RTC 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.
 
• RESPONDENT DPWH, thru the OSG meanwhile argued:
o They admitted that civil engineers were previously allowed under
RA No. 544 and PD 1096 to sign/seal the aforementioned plans.
o But it denied the Revised NBC IRR were contrary to existing laws
because RA No. 544 and PD 1096 have been repealed or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 with the Civil Engineering Law
and the National Building Code.
• United Architects of the Philippines (UAP) filed a motion to
intervene, which was allowed by the RTC. For its part it argued that
the "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.
• Parties submitted the case for resolution on the basis of their
admissions and stipulations, and their respective memorandums.
• The RTC dismissed the petition filed by herein petitioners PICE.
In its ruling it said:
o The Civil Engineering Law (RA 544) does not state in clear and
unequivocal language that civil engineers can prepare and sign
architectural documents.
o Petitioners cannot validly invoke that 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 published version of
the law in the Official Gazette thus making it unofficial and
incorrect.
o 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), as such the latter law must prevail in view of its
repealed or modification of the older law/s.
1
 PHIL INSTITUTE OF CIVIL ENGINEERS AND GAMOLO v. HON. EBDANE
C.A. G.R. C.V.-NO. 93917 DECISION, 5 JAN 2012 * MFR denied in a RESOLUTION 13 FEB 2013)

 
RULING of the Court of Appeals: Petition granted.
THE LAWS TO BE DISCUSSED AND CONSIDERED:
• 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.
• 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 [of 1950], for brevity).
• 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).
• 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).

  2
 
 PHIL INSTITUTE OF CIVIL ENGINEERS AND GAMOLO v. HON. EBDANE
C.A. G.R. C.V.-NO. 93917 DECISION, 5 JAN 2012 * MFR denied in a RESOLUTION 13 FEB 2013)
THE DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT CASE CENTERS ON THE
REVISED NBC IRR ISSUED BY THE DPWH
• The dispute in the present case essentially centers around Section
302.3 of the Revised NBC IRR, in relation to Section 302.4 thereof.
(See Notes)
• 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 3.2 of the Old IRR provides… (See Notes)
• "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.):
xxx
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
xxx
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."
• “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; x x x
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)”
3
 PHIL INSTITUTE OF CIVIL ENGINEERS AND GAMOLO v. HON. EBDANE
C.A. G.R. C.V.-NO. 93917 DECISION, 5 JAN 2012 * MFR denied in a RESOLUTION 13 FEB 2013)
WHETHER RA 544 AND PD 1096 AUTHORIZE CIVIL
ENGINEERS TO SIGN AND SEAL PLANS ENUMERATED
IN SEC. 302.4 OF THE REVISED NBC IRR – YES
PETITIONER Engineers:
• the 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 effect of granting
exclusivity by the IRR is contrary to existing laws particularly
Republic Act No. 544 (The Civil Engineering Law) and Presidential
Decree No. 1096 (The National Building Code of the Philippines)
RESPONDENT Architects and DPWH:
• The Civil Engineering Law and the National Building Code have
been repealed or modified accordingly by Republic Act No. 9266
(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.
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.

COURT of APPEALS:
• First, it is imperative to identify what documents the law considers as
"architectural documents." The specific documents that are to be
considered as "architectural documents" are not [provided for] 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, neither in the
old architecture law nor in the 2004 architecture act, to indicate that
these documents are exclusive to architects and can be prepared

  4
 
 PHIL INSTITUTE OF CIVIL ENGINEERS AND GAMOLO v. HON. EBDANE
C.A. G.R. C.V.-NO. 93917 DECISION, 5 JAN 2012 * MFR denied in a RESOLUTION 13 FEB 2013)
CAN CIVIL ENGINEERS SIGN AND SEAL THESE
PLANS? - YES
• 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 … of the construction of … buildings, … The
enumeration of any work in this section shall not be construed as excluding any
other work requiring civil engineering knowledge and application.
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.
• Clear from the above 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. However, the Court does not agree on this point. It is a
 
cardinal rule in statutory construction that a provision of a statute
must be interpreted together with the whole intention of the law.
• The general rule as reflected in the provisions of the law is that 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, 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.
• That civil engineers are allowed to design buildings is further shown
in Section 308 of PD No. 1096 or the National Building Code
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.
• 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
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:
xxx
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.
5
 PHIL INSTITUTE OF CIVIL ENGINEERS AND GAMOLO v. HON. EBDANE
C.A. G.R. C.V.-NO. 93917 DECISION, 5 JAN 2012 * MFR denied in a RESOLUTION 13 FEB 2013)

 
WAS THE LAW EFFECTIVE DESPITE A MISTAKE IN
PUBLISHING - YES
• The Court is mindful that it has been argued by intervenor UAP that
the copy of the National Building Code published in the Official
Gazette lacks the phrase “licensed architect or civil engineer, in case
of architectural and structural plans” in the last paragraph of Section
302.
• However, a review of other official copies of the National Building
Code, particularly the copy stored in the National Library, which also
bears the signature of then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, would
reveal the contrary. 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.
• Such mistake in publishing does not, however, render the law
inoperable. 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. Hence, that copy signed by the
president and stored in the National Library is the one controlling
and effective.

  6  
 PHIL INSTITUTE OF CIVIL ENGINEERS AND GAMOLO v. HON. EBDANE
C.A. G.R. C.V.-NO. 93917 DECISION, 5 JAN 2012 * MFR denied in a RESOLUTION 13 FEB 2013)
 
WHETHER THERE IS AN OVERLAPPING OF FUNCTIONS • The overlapping of functions can also be seen clearly seen in Section
BETWEEN CIVIL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS – YES 3.2 of the Old IRR which allowed either a duly licensed architect or
civil engineer to prepare, sign and seal architectural and structural
RESPONDENTS DPWH AND UAP: plans.
• Civil engineers are not simply qualified or that they do not have the • In fact, the overlapping of functions between professions is clearly
expertise in designing. The civil engineering curriculum does not have recognized under the Revised NBC IRR which states in Section 302.3
any subjects pertaining to architectural design or planning. that architectural interior/interior design documents can be signed
either by architects or by interior designers.
COURT of APPEALS: • If civil engineers were allowed to prepare, sign and seal documents
• However, even assuming it to be true that civil engineering does not that were labeled as architectural documents under the Old IRR, why
have any subjects pertaining to architectural design, the Court is of then the sudden change in the Revised NBC IRR?
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. 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).
• 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,

  7
 
 PHIL INSTITUTE OF CIVIL ENGINEERS AND GAMOLO v. HON. EBDANE
C.A. G.R. C.V.-NO. 93917 DECISION, 5 JAN 2012 * MFR denied in a RESOLUTION 13 FEB 2013)
Whether the Civil Engineering Law (RA 544) and the National
Building Code (PD 1096) has been repealed by the new
Architecture Act of 2004 (RA 9266) – NO
• First, The Court finds no such intent to expressly repeal RA 544 or
PD 9266.
• Although RA 9266 contains a repealing clause that repeals the Old
Architecture law and all other laws, orders, rules and regulations or
resolutions or part/s thereof inconsistent with the provisions of RA
9266, it had not made a similar express repeal of RA 544 and PD
1096.
• 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. 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 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.
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.
• 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.
• In this case, it is the considered view of the Court that the clear
legislative intent as expressed in Section 43 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 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.
8