CA-G.R. CV No.93917.CA Decision( Architect VS C ENGINEER PDF

Preview

Summary

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESREPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESCOURT OF APPEALSCOURT OF APPEALSMANILAMANILANINTH DIVISIONNINTH DIVISIONPHILIPPINE INSTITUTEPHILIPPINE INSTITUTEOF CIVIL ENGINEERS,OF CIVIL ENGINEERS,INC., and LEO CLETOINC., and LEO CLETOGAMOLO,GAMOLO,Petitioners-Appellants,Petitioners-Appellant...

Description



REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS MANILA

NINTH DIVISION

PHILIPPINE PHILIPPINE INSTITUTE INSTITUTE OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC., and LEO CLETO GAMOLO, 



CA-G.R. CV No. 939 Members:



Petitioners-Appellants, -versus-

THE HONORABLE  HE HERM RMOG OGEN ENES ES EB EBDA DANE NE,,  JR., in his capacity as  SE SECR CRET ETAR ARY Y OF PU PUBL BLIC IC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS,   Respondent-Appellee, 

TIJAM, N. G., Chairperson BARZA BARZA,,R. F F., ., and and SORONGON, E. D.,

PROMULGATED: JAN. 5/12 _________________ ________________

UNITED ARCHITECTS OF THE THE PHILIPPINES, PHILIPPINES,  Intervenor-Appellee

xx =============================================== ===============================================



CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 DECISION x - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - x

BARZA, R., F., J.: Befo Before re th thee Cour Courtt is an ap appe peal al from from the the Deci Decisi sion on,,1 d January 29, 2008, of Branch 22 of the Regional Trial Court o City of Manila in Civil Case No. 05-112502.

The relevant antecedent facts, as culled from the record as follows:

On May 3, 200 2005, 5, petit petition ioners ers Phi Philip lippin pinee Instit Institute ute of Engineers, Inc., (PICE) and Leo Cleto Gamolo, general couns PICE, filed a Petition2for declaratory relief and injunction w prayer for a writ of preliminary prohibitory and/or manda inju injun nct ctio ion n

and and

tem emp porary rary rest estrain rainin ing g

or ord der ag agai ain nst

Honorable Hermogenes Ebdane, Jr., in his capacity as Secreta Public Works and Highways.

Docketed as Civil Case No. 05-112502, petitioners essen asserted that civil engineers, including petitioner Gamolo and members of the PICE, have been preparing, signing and affi

thei theirr seal sealss on plan planss for for su subm bmis issi sion on to Buil Buildi ding ng Of Offi fici cial alss



CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 DECISION x - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - x

requirement for a building permit. These plans include am others: a) Vicinity Map/Location Plan, b) Site Development Pla Pl Perspective, d) Floor Plan, e) Elevations, f) Sections and the They They assert asserted ed that that for severa severall decad decades es Build Building ing Of Offic ficial ialss accepted and approved these plans which were prepared signed/sealed by civil engineers or by architects as a requirem for the issuance of a building permit. However, under Sect Sec 30 302. 2.3 3 302 02..4 of the the Revis vised NBC IRR IRR prom romulga lgated ted by Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), plans were previously prepared and signed/sealed by civil enginee arch archit itec ects ts are are now now to be sign signed ed exclusively by architec architects. ts. afor aforem emen enti tion oned ed pr prov ovis isio ions ns of the the

Revi Revise sed d NB NBC C IRR, IRR,

peti petiti tion oner erss argu argue, e, ar aree cont contra rary ry to ex exis isti ting ng laws laws pa part rtic icu u Republic Act No. 544 (RA No No.. 544) otherwise kno known wn as "Th "Thee Engineering Law", and Presidential Decree No. 1096 (PD 1 othe therwis rwisee known own as "The The Na Nattio iona nall Build ilding ing Code of Philippines."

On May 24, 2005, the trial court issued a writ of prelimi prelim inju injunc ncti tion on enjo enjoin inin ing g the the resp respon onde dent nt Se Secr cret etar ary, y, his his ag



CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 DECISION x - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - x

the questioned provisions in the subject IRR.3

In its Answer,4the respondent Secretary, represented by Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), while admitting that engineers were previously allowed under RA No. 544 and 1096 to sign/seal the aforementioned aforementioned plans, denied that the su prov provision isionss in the

Revised Revised NBC IRR were cont contrary rary to exi exi

laws arguing th that at RA No. 544 an and d PD 1096 have b been een repeal repeal modified accordingly by Republic Act No. 9266 otherwise kn as "The Architecture Act of 2004" particularly Section 20 (2) (2 (5), Article III, and Sections 25 and 29, Article IV, thereof, w are so irreconcilably inconsistent and repugnant to the laws and invoked by the petitioners.

Subseq sequentl ently y,

in intterve erven nor

Unit iteed

Arch rchite itects cts

of

Philippines (UAP) entered the fray by filing its Answer/Comm in Intervention,5and a motion for its admittance6 thereof, w the trial court admitted/granted in its Order7dated Novembe 2005. Echoing the arguments of the respondent Secretary, the 3 4

see see Order Order dated dated May 25, 2005 2005 (Rollo (Rollo Vol. I pp. pp. 83-85) 83-85) Record V Vol. ol. I pp. 121-139

5

Record V Vol. ol. I pp. 121 139 d l



CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 DECISION x - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - x

in its answer argued that "The Architecture Act of 2004" purposely drafted to, among others, curtail the practice of Engineers of drafting and signing architectural documents w are not wi withi thin n their their area area of compe competen tence/ ce/exp expert ertise ise.. Mo More re inte interv rven enor or UA UAP P alle allege ged d th that at the the pe peti titi tion oner ers' s' ca case se sh shou ould ld dismissed on the ground of forum shopping due to the fact th t similar case for declaratory relief, docketed as Civil Case No 55 5527 273, 3, was was file filed d by civi civill engi engine neer erss Fe Feli lipe pe F. Cruz Cruz and and D Consunji on April 28, 2005 before Branch 219 of the Regional Court of Quezon City.

On January 10, 2006, pre-trial was conducted and termin with the parties agreeing to submit the petition for resolutio the basis of their admissions and stipulations, and their respe memorandums.8

On January 29, 2008, the trial court rendered the appe Decision9which dismissed the instant petition and lifted the of preliminary injunction. Thefalloof the said decision reads:

"WHEREFORE

the

instant

petition

is

hereby



CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 DECISION x - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - x

DISMISSED, and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued, is hereby lifted or dissolved. SO ORDERED."

 In so ruling, the trial court held that contrary to the claim the petitioners, The Civil Engineering Law (RA 544), particu Sections 2 and 23 thereof, does not state in clear and unequiv language that civil engineers can prepare and sign architec docu cum ment ents. The trial rial co cou urt also lso held that neith ither ca can n pet petiti ition oners ers va valid lidly ly inv invok okee The The Nat Nation ional al Build Building ing Cod Codee of Philippines (PD 1096), particularly Section 302 thereof, as the basis to justify the alleged authority of civil engineers to pre sign and seal architectural plans, said authority not having expressly conferred under the official and correct version o law. Moreover, the trial court held that the provisions of being invoked by the petitioners petitioners are irreconcilably inconsi and repugnant with the provisions of The Architecture Act of (R (RA A 9266 9266), ), he henc ncee the the form former er laws laws ar aree deem deemed ed to have have repealed or modified accordingly by the latter law. Finally trial court determined that forum shopping was present in

case since the petition for declaratory relief and injunction file



CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 DECISION x - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - x

Felipe Cruz and David Consunji before Branch 219 of the RT Quezon City docketed as Civil Case No. 05-55273. Aggrieved, petitioners sought reconsideration10but this denied by the trial court in its Order11dated May 4, 2009.

Unda Undaunt unted, ed, the the pe petit tition ioners ers have have filed filed the pre presen sentt ap imputing the following errors to the trial court:

I WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT A QUO ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE CIVIL ENGINEERING LAW AND THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE DO NOT AUTHOR THORIZ IZE E CIVI IVIL ENGINE GINEE ERS TO PREPAR PARE, SIGN IGN AND SEAL PLANS THAT ARE ENUMERATED IN SECTION 302 (4) OF THE REVISED IRR; II WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE

TRIAL COURT A QUO SERIOUSLY



CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 DECISION x - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - x

THERE IS OVERLAPPING OF FUNCTIONS BETWEEN CIVIL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS; III WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT A QUO ERRED IN DECLARING THAT THE CIVIL ENGINEERING LAW AND THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE IN SO FAR AS THEY AUTHORIZED CIVIL ENGINEERS TO SIGN BUILDING PLANS WERE WERE REPE REPEAL ALED ED BY REPU REPUBL BLIC IC AC ACT T NO. 9266; IV WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT A QUO ERRED IN NOT FIN INDI DIN NG THAT SERIO IOU US DAM DAMAGE AND PREJUDICE WILL BE CAUSED TO C IVIL ENDEPRIVATION GINEERS HICH CONSTIT CONSTITUTES UTES OFWTHEIR RIGHT TO SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS; V



CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 DECISION x - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - x

THERE WAS FORUM SHOPPING.

First, a brief recap of the applicable laws involved in disp disput ute. e. Ther Theree are are esse essent ntia iall lly y fo four ur (4 (4)) la laws ws invo involv lved ed in dispute, namely:

1. Republic Act 544 (RA 544), otherwise known as the Engineering Engineering Law, which was passed in 1950. 1950. RA 544 govern practice of civil engineering in this country.

2. Republic Act No. 9266 otherwise known as "Architecture Act of 2004" which amended Republic Act No (RA 545 or the Old Architecture Law, for brevity).

3. Presidential Decree No. 1096 (PD 1096) otherwise kn as "The National Building Code" which provides among o things that its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) sha promulgate promulgated d by the Secretary o off the Ministry of Pub Public lic Works Work Highways (now Department of Public Works and Highway

DPWH) 12



CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 DECISION x - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - x

4. The disputed Revised Implementing Rules Regulations of the National Building Code (Revised NBC IRR brevity) which was promulgate promulgated d by then Acting Secretar Pu Publ blic ic Work Workss an and d Hi High ghwa ways ys Ho Hon. n. Fl Flor oran ante te So Sori riqu quez ez in which revised the old implementing rules and regulations IRR, for brevity).

The dispute in the present case essentially centers aro Section 302.3 of the Revised Revised NBC IRR, in relation relation to Se Section ction thereof, which provides as follows:

"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.): a. Geodetic Engineer, in case of lot survey plans; general powers and functions: xxx xxx xx x (2) (2) Issue Issue and and promulgate promulgate rules rules and and regulations regulations to to implement implement the the provisions provisions of of this this Code Code and and compliance compliance with with policies, policies, plans, plans, standards standards and and guidelines guidelines formulated formulated under under paragraph paragraph 11 Section. xxx xxx xx x

Section

211.

Implementing

Rules

and

Regulations.

—



CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 DECISION x - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - x

b. Arc Archite hitect, ct, in case of architec architectura turall documen documents ts;; in case of arc archit hitec ectur tural al interi interior/ or/int interi erior or design design docum document ents, s, either either an architect or interior designer may sign; c. Civil Engineer, in case of civil/structural documents documents;; d. Prof Profes essi sion onal al Elec Electr tric ical al En Engi gine neer er,, in case case of el elec ectr tric ical al documents; e. Profes Professio sional nal Mechan Mechanica icall Eng Engine ineer, er, in case case of me mecha chanic nical al documents; f. Sanitary Engineer, in case of sanitary documen documents; ts; g. Master Plumber, in case of plumbing documents; h. Electronics Engineer, in case of electronics documents.

4. Architectural Documents a. Architectural Architectural Plans/Drawi Plans/Drawings ngs i. i. Vicinity Map/Location Plan Plan within a 2.00 kilometer radius for commercial, industrial, and institutional comple complexx and within a half-kilom half-kilometer eter radius for residential buildings, at any conv conven enie ient nt scal scalee show showin ing g pr prom omin inen entt land landma mark rkss or ma majo jorr thoroughfares for easy reference. ii. Site Development Plan Planshowing showing technical description, boundaries, orientation and position of proposed building/struc building/structure ture in relation to the lot, existing or proposed access road and drive driveways ways and existing public utilities/services. utilities/services. Existing buildings buildings within and adjoi adjoining ning the lot shall be h hatched atched

an and d

dist distan ance cess be betw twee een n the the

pr prop opos osed ed

an and d

exis existi ting ng



CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 DECISION x - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - x

iii. iii. Perspective Perspective drawn at a convenient scale and taken from a vantage point (bird’s eye view or eye level). iv. Floor Floor Plan Planss drawn to scale of not less than 1:100 showin showing: g: gridli gridlines nes,, com comple plete te identi identific ficati ation on of rooms rooms or 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 exteri exterior or fin finish ishes; es; adj adjoin oining ing existi existing ng str struct ucture ure/s, /s, if an any, y, shown in single hatched lines. vi. Sections, at least two (2), showing: gridlines; natural ground and finish levels; outline of cut and visible structural pa part rts; s; do door orss an and d wind window owss pr prop oper erly ly labe labele led d re refl flec ecti ting ng the the dire direct ctio ion n of op open enin ing; g; pa part rtit itio ions ns;; bu buil iltt-in in cabi cabine nets ts,, etc. etc.;; ident identific ificatio ation n of roo rooms ms and function functional al spac spaces es cut by section section lines. vii. Ref Reflect lected ed ceil ceiling ing plan plan show showing: ing: design, design, location location,, fi fini nish shes es an and d sp spec ecif ific icat atio ions ns of ma mate teri rial als, s, ligh lighti ting ng fi fixt xtur ures es,, diffu diffuser sers, s, decora decoratio tions, ns, air condi conditio tionin ning g exh exhaus austt and ret return urn grills, sprinkler nozzles, if any, at scale of at least 1:100. viii. Details, in the form of plans, elevati elevations/section ons/sections: s: (a) Accessible ramps (b) Accessible lifts/elevators stairs (c) Accessible lifts/elevat ors (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 Accessible audio visual visual and autom automatic atic alarm



CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 DECISION x - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - x

(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. Sche Schedu dule le of Do Doors ors an and d Win Windo dows ws show showing ing their types, designations/marks, dimensions, materials, and number of sets. x. Sche Schedu dule le of Fi Finis nishe hess, showing in graphic form: su surf rfac acee fi fini nish shes es sp spec ecif ifie ied d for for fl floo oors rs,, ceil ceilin ings gs,, wa wall llss an and d baseboard trims for all bui building lding spaces per per floor level. xi. De Detai tails ls of ot other her maj major or Ar Arch chite itectu ctural ral Ele Elemen ments ts." ." (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The dispute arose because previously, under the Old particularly Section 3 of the said rules, the aforesaid "architec docum document ents" s" we were re prepa prepared red,, sig signe ned d and sea sealed led eit eithe herr by engineers or architect architects. s. Section 3 of the Old IRR provides:

"3.2 Five (5) sets of plans and specifications prepared, signed and sealed: a) by a duly licensed architect or civil engineer, in case b)

by a duly licensed sanitary engineer or master

plumber, in case of plumbing or sanitary installation plans;

)b

d l li

d

f

i

l l

i l

i

i



CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 DECISION x - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - x

in case of mechanical plans. 3.2.1 Architectural Documents: Documents: a) a)Loc Locatio ation n plan plan wi with thin in a tw twoo-ki kilo lome mete terr ra radi dius us fo forr commercial, industrial and institutional complex, and within a ha half lf-k -kil ilom omet eter er radi radius us fo forr re resi side dent ntia iall bu buil ildi ding ngs, s, at an any y conven convenien ientt scale scale,, showi showing ng pro promi minen nentt lan landma dmarks rks or ma major jor thoroughfares for easy reference. b) b)Site Site development and/or location plan planat at scale of 1:200 M standard or any convenient scale for large scale development sh show owin ing g posi positi tion on of bu buil ildi ding ng in rela relati tion on to lo lot. t. Exis Existi ting ng buildings within and adjoining the lot shall be hatched, and distances between the proposed and existing buildings shall be indicated. c)Floor c)Floor plansat plans at scale of not less than 1:100M d)Elevation d)Elevation(at (at least four) at scale of not less than 1:100M e)Sections e)Sections(at (at least two) at scale of 1:100M f) f)Foundation Foundation Planat Planat scale of not less than 1:100M g)Floor-framing g)Floor-framing plan planat at scale of not less than 1:100M

h) h)Roof-framing Roof-framing plan planat at scale of not less than 1:100M i)Details i)Details of footing/column footing/columnat at any convenient scale j) j)Details Details of structural members membersat at any convenient scale" (emphasis and underscoring supplied)



CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 DECISION x - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - x

Development Plan, c) Perspective, d) Floor Plan, e) Elevation Sections and the like, that are to be submitted to building offi as a requ requir irem emen entt fo forr a buil buildi ding ng perm permit it,, are are plan planss that that w pr prev evio ious usly ly pr prep epar ared ed and and si sign gned ed/s /sea eale led d by ci civi vill engi engine neer er architects under the 1977 IRR. However, under the new rev IRR, the said plans are now to be signed exclusivelyby archit The The afo aforem remen entio tioned ned provis provision ionss of the

Revise Revised d NB NBC C IRR, IRR,

peti petiti tion oner erss argu argue, e, are are co cont ntra rary ry to ex exis isti ting ng laws laws pa pa...