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/