SC: Only Registered and Licensed Architects May Sign

Architectural Documents
November 11, 2023

With the enactment of the Architecture Act, only registered and licensed architects may prepare, sign,
and seal architectural documents as listed under Section 302(4)(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of the Revised
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the National Building Code.

Thus ruled the Supreme Court’s Second Division, through Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F.
Leonen, granting the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed by the Department of
Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and the United Architects of the Philippines (UAP). The
petitions challenged the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had reversed the Regional Trial
Court’s (RTC) decision upholding the validity and constitutionality of Sections 302(3) and 302(4) of
the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Presidential Decree No. 1096 or the National
Building Code of the Philippines (National Building Code).

On April 10, 2004, Republic Act No. (RA) 9266 or the Architecture Act of 2002 took effect. The law
was passed “for a more responsive and comprehensive regulation for the registration, licensing and
practice of architecture.” Among the law’s declared policy is to recognize “the importance of
architects in nation building and development.”

The DPWH subsequently signed and promulgated the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations
of the National Building Code (Revised Implementing Rules) on October 29, 2004. Among the
amendments introduced were Section 302(3), which limits to architects the authority of preparing,
signing, and sealing architectural documents, and Section 302(4), which enumerates what are
considered architectural documents.

This prompted Leo Cleto Gamolo and the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, Inc. (collectively,
respondents) to file a petition for declaratory relief before the RTC to declare as void Sections 302(3)
and 302(4) of the Revised Implementing Rules. The respondents also prayed that civil engineers be
authorized to prepare, sign, and seal the documents listed in Section 302(4) of the Revised
Implementing Rules.

The RTC denied the petition, but was later reversed by the CA, which ruled and declared that
Sections 302(3) and 302(4) of the Revised Implementing Rules are void.

In granting the consolidated petitions, the Supreme Court resolved the conflicting provisions in RA
544, or the Civil Engineering Law, and in the Architecture Act.

The Civil Engineering Law provides for the authority of civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal
various plans, including architectural documents.
The Architecture Act, on the other hand, states that “[a]ll architectural plans, designs, specifications,
drawings, and architectural documents relative to the construction of a building shall bear the seal
and signature only of” a registered and licensed architect. [Emphasis added]

The Court, finding the foregoing provisions “irreconcilable,” ruled that the Architecture
Act impliedly repealed the Civil Engineering Law insofar as it permits civil engineers to prepare,
sign, and seal architectural documents.

“The repeal of a statute is a matter of legislative intent…The language of [the Architecture Act]
reveals an intention on the part of the legislature to provide for a limitation on the civil engineers’
authority to prepare, sign, and seal documents relating to building construction,” said the Court.

The Court also resolved the issue arising from conflicting versions of the National Building Code. In
the version published in the Official Gazette, the plans and specifications as part of permit
application requirements must be “prepared, signed, and sealed by a duly mechanical engineer in
case of mechanical plans, and by a registered electrical engineer in case of electrical plans…”

However, in the copy of the law stored in the National Library, the same provision reads as
“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…” [Emphasis added]

The Court ruled that the text of the National Building Code as published in the Official Gazette is the
controlling and official version, not the copy of the law stored in the National Library, consistent
with the publication requirement under Article 2 of the Civil Code. The provisions of the published
version of the law, the Court held, “cannot be supplanted by the contents of the other copy of the law
which do not appear to have complied with the publication requirement.”

“Accordingly, we rule that since the phrase ‘licensed architect or civil engineer in case of
architectural and structural plans’ was not included in the published version of the National Building
Code, this proviso cannot be considered to have any legal effect nor part of the National Building
Code,” the Court held.

The Court thus concluded that only registered and licensed architects may prepare, sign, and seal the
architectural documents listed in Section 302(4)(a), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of the Revised Implementing
Rules, while only registered and licensed architects, or interior designers, may prepare, sign, and seal
the architectural interior/interior design documents enumerated under Section 302(4)(b) of the same
rules. [Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office]

Full text of G.R. Nos. 200015 and 205846 (DPWH v. Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, Inc. and
Leo Cleto Gamolo; UAP v. Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, Inc. and Leo Cleto Gamolo)
at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/200015-205846-department-of-public-works-and-highways-vs-
philippine-institute-of-civil-engineers-inc-and-leo-cleto-gamolo-united-architects-of-philippines-vs-
philippine-institute-of-civil-engineer/