REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF APPEALS MANILA ELEVENTH DIVISION, br PHILIPPINE INSTITUTE OF CA-GR CV.NO. 52563 ARCHITECTS, ING, Petitioner-Appellee, : Members: + veisus- : GUERRERO, 8.1, Charman, d HORMACHUELOS PA. and BELLO, R_LELR, (Actin) te PROFESSIONAL REGULATORY [sie] COMMISSION, BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE and UNITED ARCHITECTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents Appellants, Promulgated: kl eso EX DEC ON GUERRERO, Jf: Appeal from: the decision dated 13 February 1996" ofthe Rerianal Thal Court National Capital hucheial Region, Makati; Branch 64 (hereafier, “tial court) nm a-suit for Declarntory Relief docketed as Civil Case No. 94.” S61, entitled “Philippine Instinne ‘af Architects, Inc., Petitiéner.. versus Professional Regulatory [sic] Commission, Board of Architecture, United Architects of the Philippines, Ine.. Respondents," which declared vaid and ttiticnal Resolution No, Ol, Series of 1993 issued by the Board of Architecture and approved by thé Professional Regulaory [sie] Commission, and from the Order dated @3 June 1996" which denied the motion’ for reconsideration filed by respondents The facts as succinctly summarized by the trial court aré as billows: | “For meséten 0 lt the Petition For Declamiocy Keliof ander Rule 64.0 Ihe Rules of Coutt filed by Philippine Institute of Archileets (PIA} ta detecting the validity of Resobition No. O4, aerien pf 1993 iasued by the Hoard of Architecture (hearst died approved by the Proferional Regubtere [aie] Gommbision (PRCT, Nand ceapoideute in. tho petition aro the Professional Regulatary. mission, the Hand of Architecture _ vend the Unites) Architexts of the Philippines, bie. (LIAB), “The “potitivwcr clans (hat Resolution Nu. 04 Setter uf 199% Vidhive die conifitutionally guatantoed right of petitioner, the PEA, toCA-GR, CV No, $2563 DECISION Page No. [ 2 | equal protection of Lowa: and that the bnplementation of Resolution No. 04, Series of 1995 is an unlawful exercise of respondents’ reg mt logislative powers, ‘The said Reaolulion was jssued in congultation wilh the United Aruhitects of the Philippines, ‘tho duly accredited profesainnal ssscelation for architects, by virtue of Seu, 8AM. Lof R.A, No, 543°, “Th essetiee “tho Mestioned. Resolution No. 4, Series of 1097 wourdes for the atandatd requirements and peocedures oh the cotdinning Protensional education (CPE) progkun, for architects in tho Philippines tt vets up the Natiooal Accreditation and Evaluation Board (NABH, ‘the NAEB is. cotnpoved of & chairperson and tm’ (2) metufiie of the accredited association of architects who shalt be recommencled by.the said association 16 the Board of Architecture for its appointment subjeet to the approval by thé Cioramission, The chuirpenion or n member of the Beant of Architecture shall be an Ex-Officio member of NAEB, “The finctions of the NAEB arv.ag follows: “a. To evalnate and recommend program, sctivitles © for acoredilition, h. ‘Te determine the céedit units earned for tach aubject or wpie riven in the seneibar, © To mpuitec and eriodivally assesa program implementation, 4. To review aul caving jcidtetinen fe CPR program every three (3) yoars oF earlion iP necessaey, ¢. To evahunte anu apqrove applications fur accreditation: and f To iagye certifiewte of compliance with the CPI. unite requirements)” “The CPE, credit units to be complied with by architects renewing their professional licetises are. to wit: ‘1, Renewable in June 1993-12 oredit- units 2, Renewable m June 1994-24 credit amity 3 Renewable ini June 1995 or therwifer ~ 6 credit initia” “Aa indicated in one of the whereas clauses; Resolution No, 04 has boon issued ne part of the regulatory powers, duties ond Ametions of the Board, under-See, 6(n) of PE). Nu, 223 and See: 2, Att. 2 OF RAL Mo. $45 The Bowed has to adopt or pmsefilie ieasurns that are designed by: upgiade, eaharieg, and foster the technical, aud mocil standard of Ue profession ' “Purmwaint te Re ition Nu, 04 in.qMestion, the NAEB. ard after consultation with ihe UAP as the duly accredited prpanization for arclutects, issued Resolution No, (1, Series of 1993 providing, for. the unidelinves, requirements for implementing the CPE proginm foe architectsCA-GR CY. No, 32563. DECISION Page No,{ 3} SU provides for the following guidelines, 1. The CPR Prograui hall: be implemented: by, UAP. thru ils: chapter, distriel, regicaal of inationa!. organization, jan the: ». duly vaceredited: professional” organization for’ architec recognized by the PRC and BOA, . 2. Thi NAHB shall appoint, accredil, organize and. coordlitiate with thé UAP for the impletientation of the CPE Program and toake CPE Seminars available to all WAP and non-UAP member alike. f : 3. CPE semionrs shall be conducted by UAP provided iat the fopies are in accdrdance with those approved and actiedited ag CPE ctedii units; UAP Chapter President nd -2 shall cottify attendance to Seminars in thy form prescribed by NATE! Other entities may also be accredited by NAEB on caae to case basis. x" 4, CPE seminars may be held in conjinetion with the regular UAP inonthly chapter ineetisiga provided a specific’ number of hours are uséd in'the conduct of Seminar Topics approved aod accrediled by, NAEB. The managoriett: of holding of Seminars shalt-be the rexponsibility of the Chyytce oc Yogether with other Chapters if deemed feasible. 2 The: NAEB approved topics or subjécts for Seniinars, Syniposia, Dialogues, Clonferences, ‘Dalangkatan’ and others, conelicted Uy the UAP thn itn component units shalt be aceredited ty NABB as CPE units with the normal rating : oy BPlbvo, (2) eontaed hours equals, to one (1) CPE exe ‘wut, 6. ‘The NAER aball adopt rafoa ant regulations, io consultation with the UAP National Board, as arc necenaary to effectively implement the provision’ of BOA Res. No, O4 Series of 1993, sn TyoThy NAEB authorizes the, UAP thro its chapters in the cities, palities and, provinces, to accept the applications for of PRC licenses, . & .ty coosunance with BOA consultation with UAP in the pir’parntion of Slaridards Requirements and Procedures of the CPE Progam for’ Architects in the Philippines, the accredited Aclivilies and exeinptions' referred to in Section 7-4, b & o of Art IT and See." 10-2, 4, and 6 of Act. TV of the BOA Res, “Nav O4 § 93, are those of the United Architects of the Phila, (UAP) only, and not other individuals, groups or organizations not duly aceredited by PRC.CA-G.R. CV No. $2563 DECISION Page No. { 4} 9. Effectivity of CPR Requirements are: 1, Renewable in June 1994 12 CPE eredit units 2, Renewable in Aine 1995-24 CPE credit unite 3. Reuewable in June 1996 of thureafley ~ 36 CPE credit units, “The VAR famed Resolution No. 07, Serics of 1994 rezubating the CPE Seminars nol conducted by WAP. It provides: 1. EPE Seminars not conducted by UAP wueti na those offered by. private. A‘& E consulting Jinna, goveruvent agenicies or estibliahed catities ongaged in the businews. of conducting regular seminnra related {0 CPE attended -by architects employed by ch firins oc agencies, should be referred to'the UAP chapter under whose geographical jurisdiction said finns oF agencies are located, for verification of- attendance. ane cettifiention by UAP chapter prosident and svcrelary, provicled that such entities and seminars have prior accreditation by ARB andl that hve (2) contact hours are equivalent to one (1) CPA unit," The assailed decision was promulgated after trial on the merits. Thus, this. appeal, the Professional Regulatory {sic] Commission, et.al, (hereafter, “respondents-appellanis”) making the following assignment of érrors: I THE LOWE HIRT ERRED IN DECLARING RESOLUTION NO! Of, UES OF - 1993 OF THE BOARD: OF ARCHITECTURE NULL AND VOID, fit! LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ENVORCEMENT OF RESOLUTION NO. 04,8... 1993 VIOLATES. THE CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER-APPELLEE TO THE EQUAL > PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. ‘The sol. issue’ is whether or not Resolution No. 04, Series of 1993 issued by the Boatd of Architecture and approved: by: the Professional” Regulation Conmission, is valid and constitutional. . spel LST: JYRIER: Resnlution No, (if, Series of 1993 issued purstiant to Section 6(a) of PD. 223, is a valid exercise: of the powers vested on the Board of Architecture and al! other Professional Regulatory Boards. Soll pyr 248 Nid 38CA-GR, CV No, $2863 DECISION Page No. [ s | The object .and purpose of. Resolution No. 04, Series of 1993, is germane to the objects and purposes of P.D. No, 223 insofar as it relates to the retained power of the Professional Regulatory [sic] Board, in this case, the Board af Architecture. Section a) of PD. 223 prescribes the inaintenance of high professional, ethical’ and technical standards, and these Standards may be achieved by requiring professionals to undergo Continuing Professional. Education (CPE) as_a condition for the renewal of their professional licenses, ‘ Nowhere.in the questioned Resolution is there a provision indicating “clear bias-in favor of the UAP" of “giving it (UAP) a preferred-status as the sole. and exclusive’ architects’ organization vested with the authority to undertake and supervise the CPB program”, In fact, the Philippine Institute of Architects (hereatter, “petitioner-appellee”) applied for and wis registered as a Continuing Professional Education (CPE) Provider with Certificate of Registration No. 003 dated 09 May 1996; ‘The implementation of the questioned Resolution has been delegated to the UAP pursuant to Letter of Instruction No. 1000 (hereafter, “LOI No. 1000) issued on 20 March 1980, LOI No. 1000 provides that all goverment agencies concerned should authorize and support only PRC accredited bonafide professional orgnnization [sic] and their members to organize, host, “Sponsor, or represent the Filipitto professionals in national, ‘tegional, and international forums [sic], conferences, conventions, where the concemed professions ‘are: involved. The UAP is the only accredited: professional organization of architects registered with the PRC. ; It is erroneous ‘to hold the view. that the Resolution in question amended RA No. 545 and 1.0, No. 266, S. 1995, did not cute the constitutional infirinity of the assailed Resolution because the latter is nat’ constitutionally infirm. _ The powers of the Commission to administer, implement, and enforce. the regulatory policies of the government with respect to:the regulation and licensing of the various professions would be rendered meaningless if it could not, in the exercise of said powers, sidopt measure it deems necessary for the proper enhancement. of the profession or.-maintained high professional, ethival, and technical standards” of ' the professions and professionals. ¢ APPELLEE'S BRIE! The PRC ca exercise its regulatory and delegated legislative powers including maintenance of professional, ethical, and occupational standards. However, the PRE exceeded its powers when it approved. the Board ofCA-GR. CV No. $2563 DECISION Page No. | 6 } ‘Architecture’s-grant.to the UAP of preferential, if not exclusive authority to undertake and ‘supervise the Continuing” Professional Education (CPE) program among architects, Resciution No, 04, Series of 1993 Petitioners rgne to equ’ UAP the sole and exclusive implementation of the CPE program, RA 545 regulates the prictice of architecture in the: Philippines. It laid down the requirements for the practice of architecture asa profession, thus (Ly pavsed licensure exam; (2) paid: registration fee; (3) took professional oath, The questioned Resolution adds another requirement for the practice of architecture: ‘architect must obtain, creditable units by attending a CPE Program {before his license can be renewed), The Resolution, therelore, amends RA S45, Resolution No, 04, Series of 1993 violates the right of petitioner- appellee to cqual protection of the law, The questioned Resolution arrogates unto the UAP certain rights and privileges denied: other architectural organizations like the Philippine Institute of Architects, Inc. (petitioner- appelice) their right to cqual protection of the laws for the following reasons: (1) the resolution was pronmulgated afler consultation with the UAP to the exclusion of other architectural organizations, (2) UAP given’ exclusive representation in the NAEB: to the exclusion of other architectural organizations; (3) the NAGB, created by the questioned’ Resolution empowered the UAP’ to implement the CPE Program and ‘gave exclusive powers te the UAP to accept applications for renewal of PRC licenses and to verify and certify atendance in all CPE seminars not conducted by UAP. ‘The Resolution in question givesa preferred status to the UAP. In contrast, the PIA which is also en organization of architects, and founded 39 years earlier than ‘the UAP, has nat heen assigned any, role in the implementation af the CPE Program, The NAEB honats only activities and programs spansored by the LAP, totally disregarding simular activitios held by PTA. Worse, the NAF denied the PIA's request for accreditation of its national convention us fulfillment and satisfaction of certain units of the CPE Progra, All the privileges granted to the UAP oblige non-UAP architects: to became its members, encroaching their individual freedom fo jain associations and disnying (hens the equal protection of the laws: utive Order No. 226 dees not cure the questioned Resalution’s constitutional infirmity because. RA $48 can be amended only by anotherGA-G.R. CV No. 52563 DECTSION Page No. [7] law and not by a mere executive order! per EO 226, as’ standaidized guidelines have heen adapted for the various Boards (hence’even assuming that Resolution No, 4 is nat declared unconstitutional; the requirement ‘conceming creditable units to be ened before an architect's lidense may be renewed, must be suspended.) {COURT'S RULING: The appeal igiwithout merit, As correctly stated by. the Jett court, Resoltition No; 4, Series of 1993 issued by ‘the Board of Architecture and appraved by the Protissional Regulation Commission, is void. and’ {unconstitutional as it infringes on petitioner-appelice's tight (0 equal protection of the laws, Article TH, Section | of the 1987 Constitution is applicable and it reads: “Section 1. Mo person shall be deprived of lite, liberty, or property without ¢hie process of lnw, nor aluill any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” The equal. protection clause in our Constitution. means, that -persons. similarly situated should he similarly treated, Laws should operate: in the’ same way on all petsons who arc in the same situation or condilion. The eqtal protection clause does not, however, forbid ‘all legal classification. What it proscribes is a classification which is: atbitrary and unreasonable? : It is an established principle of constitutional Jaw that the guaranty of equal protection of the laws is not violated by legislation based on Teasonable classification, And for the classification to be reasonable, it (1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purpose of the law; (3) must not be limited {o existing conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to all: members. of thegaoe class. Does Resolution No. 4, series- of 1993 employ a valid and reasonable classification? The answer is in the negotive. ‘The classification in the questioned resolution cannot he allowed, It is based on a distinction (Le. it distinguishes between architects who are members of ‘the “UAP, and architects who are not members of the WAP) which is not 4 real difference (because all of these peapte are architects) Amanbse v, Comeler, #5 SCRA 382 [1980] “Te Con(arence of Maritime Manning Agencies, Ine. v, VORA, 243 BORA 666 [1998]CA-GR. CV No, $2563 DECISION PageNo, { 3 | Since the. questioned resolution effectively segregates UAP architects from non-UAP archi petitioner-appellee and other non-UAP orponizations are adversely affected, Far from being germane to its purpose Of continuing education for the betterment of the architecture professiew in the country, it is obvious that there is here a discrimination against non- UAP architects. Moreover; there is here an obvious bias and undue preference given to UAP members. The UAP is the sole and exclusive architects organization which has:authority to undertake and supervise the CPE Program. Equal protection shall be given to every. person under'cifcumstances which if not identical are analogous, “Ihose that fall within'a class should be treated in the same fashion. Whatever restrictions east ‘on some in the group stiould also be Placed upon the resi, Clearly, the clussification violates the equal protection guarantee, SWHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. ‘The assailed decision und order we all AFFIRMED in foto Pr SO ORDERED, . CONCUR 2) ind Ba 2 Z PORTIA ALINO MORMACHUELOS ELOY &. BELLO, JR, Assochte Justice : Associate Justice CERTIFICATION | hereby certify that this “decision was reached after due Consultation among the members of this Division in accordance. with the provisions of Section 13, Chafrman Mery?2/ SUN