REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
NINTH DIVISION
PHILIPPINE INSTITUTE
OF CIVIL ENGINEERS,
INC., and LEO CLETO
GAMOLO,
Petitioners-Appeants,
-!ers"s-
THE HONORA#LE
HERMOGENES E#$ANE,
%R., in &is 'apa'it( as
SECRETAR) OF PU#LIC
*OR+S AN$ HIGH*A)S,
Respondent-Appeee,
UNITE$ ARCHITECTS OF
THE PHILIPPINES,
Inter!enor-Appeee
CA-G.R. CV No. ,-,./

Me01ers2

TI%AM, N. G.,
Chairperson
BARZA, R. F., and
SORONGON, E. $., JJ.


PROMULGATE$2
%AN. 34.5
6666666666666666666
x ================================================ x
D E CI S I O N
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 2
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
BARZA, R., F., J.:
Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision,
1
dated
January !, ""#, of Branch of the $e%ional &rial Court of the
City of 'anila in Ci(il Case No) "*+11*")
&he rele(ant antecedent facts, as culled from the record, are
as follo,s-
On 'ay ., ""*, petitioners /hilippine Institute of Ci(il
En%ineers, Inc), 0/ICE1 and 2eo Cleto 3amolo, %eneral counsel of
/ICE, filed a /etition

for declaratory relief and in4unction ,ith a

prayer for a ,rit of preliminary prohi5itory and6or mandatory
in4unction and temporary restrainin% order a%ainst then
7onora5le 7ermo%enes E5dane, Jr), in his capacity as Secretary of
/u5lic 8or9s and 7i%h,ays)
Doc9eted as Ci(il Case No) "*+11*", petitioners essentially
asserted that ci(il en%ineers, includin% petitioner 3amolo and the
mem5ers of the /ICE, ha(e 5een preparin%, si%nin% and affixin%
their seals on plans for su5mission to Buildin% Officials as a
1
Rollo pp. 90-120
2
Record Vol. I pp. 2-11
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 3
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
re:uirement for a 5uildin% permit) &hese plans include amon%
others- a1 ;icinity 'ap62ocation /lan, 51 Site De(elopment /lan, c1
/erspecti(e, d1 <loor /lan, e1 Ele(ations, f1 Sections and the li9e)
&hey asserted that for se(eral decades Buildin% Officials ha(e
accepted and appro(ed these plans ,hich ,ere prepared and
si%ned6sealed 5y ci(il en%ineers or 5y architects as a re:uirement
for the issuance of a 5uildin% permit) 7o,e(er, under Sections
."). .")= of the $e(ised NBC I$$ promul%ated 5y the
Department of /u5lic 8or9s and 7i%h,ays 0D/871, plans that
,ere pre(iously prepared and si%ned6sealed 5y ci(il en%ineers or
architects are no, to 5e si%ned exclusively 5y architects) &he
aforementioned pro(isions of the $e(ised NBC I$$, the
petitioners ar%ue, are contrary to existin% la,s particularly
$epu5lic >ct No) *== 0$> No) *==1 other,ise 9no,n as ?&he Ci(il
En%ineerin% 2a,?, and /residential Decree No) 1"!@ 0/D 1"!@1
other,ise 9no,n as ?&he National Buildin% Code of the
/hilippines)?
On 'ay =, ""*, the trial court issued a ,rit of preliminary
in4unction en4oinin% the respondent Secretary, his a%ents,
representati(es and assi%ns, from implementin% and carryin% out
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 4
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
the :uestioned pro(isions in the su54ect I$$)
.
In its >ns,er,
=
the respondent Secretary, represented 5y the
Office of the Solicitor 3eneral 0OS31, ,hile admittin% that ci(il
en%ineers ,ere pre(iously allo,ed under $> No) *== and /D
1"!@ to si%n6seal the aforementioned plans, denied that the su54ect
pro(isions in the $e(ised NBC I$$ ,ere contrary to existin%
la,s ar%uin% that $> No) *== and /D 1"!@ ha(e 5een repealed or
modified accordin%ly 5y $epu5lic >ct No) !@@ other,ise 9no,n
as ?&he >rchitecture >ct of ""=? particularly Section " 01 and
0*1, >rticle III, and Sections * and !, >rticle I;, thereof, ,hich
are so irreconcila5ly inconsistent and repu%nant to the la,s cited
and in(o9ed 5y the petitioners)
Su5se:uently, inter(enor Anited >rchitects of the
/hilippines 0A>/1 entered the fray 5y filin% its >ns,er6Comment
in Inter(ention,
*
and a motion for its admittance
@
thereof, ,hich
the trial court admitted6%ranted in its Order
B
dated No(em5er 1B,
""*) Echoin% the ar%uments of the respondent Secretary, the A>/
3
see Order daed !a" 2#$ 200# %Rollo Vol. I pp. &3-&#'
4
Record Vol. I pp. 121-139
#
Record Vol. I pp. 239-2&1
(
see !o)o* +or ,ea-e o I*er-e*e a*d Ad.) Aac/ed A*s0er1Co..e* )* I*er-e*)o* %Record
Vol. I pp. 200- 210
7
Record Vol. I pp. 433-434
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 #
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
in its ans,er ar%ued that ?&he >rchitecture >ct of ""=? ,as
purposely drafted to, amon% others, curtail the practice of Ci(il
En%ineers of draftin% and si%nin% architectural documents ,hich
are not ,ithin their area of competence6expertise) 'oreo(er,
inter(enor A>/ alle%ed that the petitionersC case should 5e
dismissed on the %round of forum shoppin% due to the fact that a
similar case for declaratory relief, doc9eted as Ci(il Case No) "*+
**B., ,as filed 5y ci(il en%ineers <elipe <) CruD and Da(id
Consun4i on >pril #, ""* 5efore Branch 1! of the $e%ional &rial
Court of EueDon City)
On January 1", ""@, pre+trial ,as conducted and terminated
,ith the parties a%reein% to su5mit the petition for resolution on
the 5asis of their admissions and stipulations, and their respecti(e
memorandums)
#
On January !, ""#, the trial court rendered the appealed
Decision
!
,hich dismissed the instant petition and lifted the ,rit
of preliminary in4unction) &he fallo of the said decision reads-
?87E$E<O$E, the instant petition is here5y
&
see Order daed 2a*3ar" 10$ 200( %Rollo Vol. II p. ##('
9
Record Vol. III pp. 1217-1247
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 (
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
DIS'ISSED, and the 8rit of /reliminary In4unction issued, is
here5y lifted or dissol(ed)
SO O$DE$ED)?

In so rulin%, the trial court held that contrary to the claims of
the petitioners, &he Ci(il En%ineerin% 2a, 0$> *==1, particularly
Sections and . thereof, does not state in clear and une:ui(ocal
lan%ua%e that ci(il en%ineers can prepare and si%n architectural
documents) &he trial court also held that neither can the
petitioners (alidly in(o9e &he National Buildin% Code of the
/hilippines 0/D 1"!@1, particularly Section ." thereof, as the le%al
5asis to 4ustify the alle%ed authority of ci(il en%ineers to prepare,
si%n and seal architectural plans, said authority not ha(in% 5een
expressly conferred under the official and correct (ersion of the
la,) 'oreo(er, the trial court held that the pro(isions of la,s
5ein% in(o9ed 5y the petitioners are irreconcila5ly inconsistent
and repu%nant ,ith the pro(isions of &he >rchitecture >ct of ""=
0$> !@@1, hence the former la,s are deemed to ha(e 5een
repealed or modified accordin%ly 5y the latter la,) <inally, the
trial court determined that forum shoppin% ,as present in this
case since the petition for declaratory relief and in4unction filed 5y
the petitioners ,as su5stantially identical to the petition filed 5y
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 7
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
<elipe CruD and Da(id Consun4i 5efore Branch 1! of the $&C of
EueDon City doc9eted as Ci(il Case No) "*+**B.)
>%%rie(ed, petitioners sou%ht reconsideration
1"
5ut this ,as
denied 5y the trial court in its Order
11
dated 'ay =, ""!)
Andaunted, the petitioners ha(e filed the present appeal
imputin% the follo,in% errors to the trial court-
I
87E&7E$ O$ NO& &7E 7ONO$>B2E
&$I>2 COA$& > EAO E$$ED IN
DEC2>$IN3 &7>& &7E CI;I2
EN3INEE$IN3 2>8 >ND &7E
N>&ION>2 BAI2DIN3 CODE DO NO&
>A&7O$IFE CI;I2 EN3INEE$S &O
/$E/>$E, SI3N >ND SE>2 /2>NS
&7>& >$E ENA'E$>&ED IN SEC&ION
." 0=1 O< &7E $E;ISED I$$G
II
87E&7E$ O$ NO& &7E 7ONO$>B2E
&$I>2 COA$& > EAO SE$IOAS2H
E$$ED IN NO& $ECO3NIFIN3 &7>&
10
see !o)o* +or Reco*s)dera)o* %Record Vol. III pp. 124&-12(&'
11
Record Vol. III pp. 1(22-1(2#'
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 &
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
&7E$E IS O;E$2>//IN3 O<
<ANC&IONS BE&8EEN CI;I2
EN3INEE$S >ND >$C7I&EC&SG
III
87E&7E$ O$ NO& &7E 7ONO$>B2E
&$I>2 COA$& > EAO E$$ED IN
DEC2>$IN3 &7>& &7E CI;I2
EN3INEE$IN3 2>8 >ND &7E
N>&ION>2 BAI2DIN3 CODE IN SO <>$
>S &7EH >A&7O$IFED CI;I2
EN3INEE$S &O SI3N BAI2DIN3 /2>NS
8E$E $E/E>2ED BH $E/AB2IC >C&
NO) !@@G
I;
87E&7E$ O$ NO& &7E 7ONO$>B2E
&$I>2 COA$& > EAO E$$ED IN NO&
<INDIN3 &7>& SE$IOAS D>'>3E
>ND /$EJADICE 8I22 BE C>ASED &O
CI;I2 EN3INEE$S 87IC7
CONS&I&A&ES DE/$I;>&ION O< &7EI$
$I37& &O SABS&>N&I;E DAE
/$OCESSG
;
87E&7E$ O$ NO& &7E 7ONO$>B2E
&$I>2 COA$& E$$ED IN $A2IN3 &7>&
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 9
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
&7E$E 8>S <O$A' S7O//IN3)
<irst, a 5rief recap of the applica5le la,s in(ol(ed in this
dispute) &here are essentially four 0=1 la,s in(ol(ed in this
dispute, namely-
1) $epu5lic >ct *== 0$> *==1, other,ise 9no,n as the Ci(il
En%ineerin% 2a,, ,hich ,as passed in 1!*") $> *== %o(erns the
practice of ci(il en%ineerin% in this country)
) $epu5lic >ct No) !@@ other,ise 9no,n as the
?>rchitecture >ct of ""=? ,hich amended $epu5lic >ct No) *=*
0$> *=* or the Old >rchitecture 2a,, for 5re(ity1)
.) /residential Decree No) 1"!@ 0/D 1"!@1 other,ise 9no,n
as ?&he National Buildin% Code? ,hich pro(ides amon% other
thin%s that its Implementin% $ules and $e%ulations 0I$$1 shall 5e
promul%ated 5y the Secretary of the 'inistry of /u5lic 8or9s and
7i%h,ays 0no, Department of /u5lic 8or9s and 7i%h,ays or
D/871)
1
12
Sec)o* 203. Ge*eral 4o0ers a*d 53*c)o*s o+ /e Secrear" 3*der /)s Code. 6
5or p3rposes o+ carr")*7 o3 /e pro-)s)o*s o+ /)s Code$ /e Secrear" s/all exerc)se /e +ollo0)*7
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 10
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
=) &he disputed $e(ised Implementin% $ules and
$e%ulations of the National Buildin% Code 0$e(ised NBC I$$, for
5re(ity1 ,hich ,as promul%ated 5y then >ctin% Secretary of
/u5lic 8or9s and 7i%h,ays 7on) <lorante Sori:ueD in ""=
,hich re(ised the old implementin% rules and re%ulations 0Old
I$$, for 5re(ity1)
&he dispute in the present case essentially centers around
Section ."). of the $e(ised NBC I$$, in relation to Section .")=
thereof, ,hich pro(ides as follo,s-
?SEC&ION .") >pplication for /ermits
.) <i(e 0*1 sets of sur(ey plans, desi%n plans, specifications and
other documents prepared, si%ned and sealed o(er the printed
names of the duly licensed and re%istered professionals 0<i%s)
III)1) and III))1-
a) 3eodetic En%ineer, in case of lot sur(ey plansG
7e*eral po0ers a*d +3*c)o*s8
xxx xxx xxx
%2' Iss3e a*d pro.3l7ae r3les a*d re73la)o*s o ).ple.e* /e pro-)s)o*s o+ /)s Code a*d e*s3re
co.pl)a*ce 0)/ pol)c)es$ pla*s$ sa*dards a*d 73)del)*es +or.3laed 3*der para7rap/ 1 o+ /)s
Sec)o*.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec)o* 211. I.ple.e*)*7 R3les a*d Re73la)o*s. 6
I* /e ).ple.e*a)o* o+ /e pro-)s)o*s o+ /)s Code$ /e Secrear" s/all +or.3lae *ecessar" r3les
a*d re73la)o*s a*d adop des)7* a*d co*sr3c)o* sa*dards a*d cr)er)a +or 93)ld)*7s a*d o/er
sr3c3res. S3c/ sa*dards$ r3les a*d re73la)o*s s/all a:e e++ec a+er /e)r p39l)ca)o* o*ce a 0ee:
+or /ree co*sec3)-e 0ee:s )* a *e0spaper o+ 7e*eral c)rc3la)o*.
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 11
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
5) Architect i! c"se #$ "rchitectur"l %#cu&e!tsG in case of
architectural interior6interior desi%n documents, either an
architect or interior desi%ner may si%nG
c) Civil E!'i!eer i! c"se #$ civil(structur"l %#cu&e!tsG
d) /rofessional Electrical En%ineer, in case of electrical
documentsG
e) /rofessional 'echanical En%ineer, in case of mechanical
documentsG
f) Sanitary En%ineer, in case of sanitary documentsG
%) 'aster /lum5er, in case of plum5in% documentsG
h) Electronics En%ineer, in case of electronics documents)
=) Architectur"l D#cu&e!ts
a) >rchitectural /lans6Dra,in%s
i) Vici!ity M")(L#c"ti#! Pl"! ,ithin a )"" 9ilometer
radius for commercial, industrial, and institutional complex and
,ithin a half+9ilometer radius for residential 5uildin%s, at any
con(enient scale sho,in% prominent landmar9s or ma4or
thorou%hfares for easy reference)
ii) Site Devel#)&e!t Pl"! sho,in% technical description,
5oundaries, orientation and position of proposed
5uildin%6structure in relation to the lot, existin% or proposed
access road and dri(e,ays and existin% pu5lic utilities6ser(ices)
Existin% 5uildin%s ,ithin and ad4oinin% the lot shall 5e hatched
and distances 5et,een the proposed and existin%
5uildin%s shall 5e indicated)
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 12
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
iii) Pers)ective dra,n at a con(enient scale and ta9en
from a (anta%e point 05irdIs eye (ie, or eye le(el1)
i() Fl##r Pl"!s dra,n to scale of not less than 1-1""
sho,in%- %ridlines, complete identification of rooms or
functional spaces)
() Elev"ti#!s, at least four 0=1, same scale as floor plans
sho,in%- %ridlinesG natural %round to finish %rade ele(ationsG
floor to floor hei%htsG door and ,indo, mar9s, type of material
and exterior finishesG ad4oinin% existin% structure6s, if any,
sho,n in sin%le hatched lines)
(i) Secti#!s, at least t,o 01, sho,in%- %ridlinesG natural
%round and finish le(elsG outline of cut and (isi5le structural
partsG doors and ,indo,s properly la5eled reflectin% the
direction of openin%G partitionsG 5uilt+in ca5inets, etc)G
identification of rooms and functional spaces cut 5y section
lines)
(ii) Re$lecte% ceili!' )l"! sho,in%- desi%n, location,
finishes and specifications of materials, li%htin% fixtures,
diffusers, decorations, air conditionin% exhaust and return
%rills, sprin9ler noDDles, if any, at scale of at least 1-1"")
(iii) Det"ils, in the form of plans, ele(ations6sections-
0a1 >ccessi5le ramps
051 >ccessi5le stairs
0c1 >ccessi5le lifts6ele(ators
0d1 >ccessi5le entrances, corridors and ,al9,ays
0e1 >ccessi5le functional areas6comfort rooms
0f1 >ccessi5le s,itches, controls
0%1 >ccessi5le drin9in% fountains
0h1 >ccessi5le pu5lic telephone 5ooths
0i1 >ccessi5le audio (isual and automatic alarm
system
041 >ccessi5le access sym5ols and directional si%ns
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 13
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
091 $eser(ed par9in% for disa5led persons
0l1 &ypical ,all65ay sections from %round to roof
0m1 Stairs, interior and exterior
0n1 <ire escapes6exits
0o1 Built+in ca5inets, counters and fixed furniture
0p1 >ll types of partitions
ix) Sche%ule #$ D##rs "!% *i!%#+s sho,in% their
types, desi%nations6mar9s, dimensions, materials, and num5er
of sets)
x) Sche%ule #$ Fi!ishes, sho,in% in %raphic form-
surface finishes specified for floors, ceilin%s, ,alls and
5ase5oard trims for all 5uildin% spaces per floor le(el)
xi) Det"ils #$ #ther &",#r Architectur"l Ele&e!ts)?
0emphasis and underscorin% supplied1
&he dispute arose 5ecause pre(iously, under the Old I$$,
particularly Section . of the said rules, the aforesaid ?architectural
documents? ,ere prepared, si%ned and sealed either 5y ci(il
en%ineers or architects) Section . of the Old I$$ pro(ides-
?.) <i(e 0*1 sets of plans and specifications prepared,
si%ned and sealed-
a1 -y " %uly lice!se% "rchitect #r civil e!'i!eer i! c"se
#$ "rchitectur"l "!% structur"l )l"!sG
51 5y a duly licensed sanitary en%ineer or master
plum5er, in case of plum5in% or sanitary installation plansG
c1 5y a duly licensed professional electrical en%ineer, in
case of electrical plansG
d1 5y a duly licensed professional mechanical en%ineer,
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 14
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
in case of mechanical plans)
.))1 Architectur"l D#cu&e!ts-
a1L#c"ti#! )l"! ,ithin a t,o+9ilometer radius for
commercial, industrial and institutional complex, and ,ithin a
half+9ilometer radius for residential 5uildin%s, at any
con(enient scale, sho,in% prominent landmar9s or ma4or
thorou%hfares for easy reference)
51Site %evel#)&e!t "!%(#r l#c"ti#! )l"! at scale of 1-""
' standard or any con(enient scale for lar%e scale de(elopment
sho,in% position of 5uildin% in relation to lot) Existin%
5uildin%s ,ithin and ad4oinin% the lot shall 5e hatched, and
distances 5et,een the proposed and existin% 5uildin%s shall 5e
indicated)
c1Fl##r )l"!s at scale of not less than 1-1""'
d1Elev"ti#! 0at least four1 at scale of not less than 1-1""'
e1Secti#!s 0at least t,o1 at scale of 1-1""'
f1F#u!%"ti#! Pl"! at scale of not less than 1-1""'
%1Fl##r.$r"&i!' )l"! at scale of not less than 1-1""'
h1R##$.$r"&i!' )l"! at scale of not less than 1-1""'
i1Det"ils #$ $##ti!'(c#lu&! at any con(enient scale
41Det"ils #$ structur"l &e&-ers at any con(enient scale?
0emphasis and underscorin% supplied1
/etitioners, ci(il en%ineers, essentially ar%ue that the
aforesaid plans such as- a1 ;icinity 'ap62ocation /lan, 51 Site
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 1#
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
De(elopment /lan, c1 /erspecti(e, d1 <loor /lan, e1 Ele(ations, f1
Sections and the li9e, that are to 5e su5mitted to 5uildin% officials
as a re:uirement for a 5uildin% permit, are plans that ,ere
pre(iously prepared and si%ned6sealed 5y ci(il en%ineers or
architects under the 1!BB I$$) 7o,e(er, under the ne, re(ised
I$$, the said plans are no, to 5e si%ned exclusively 5y architects)
&he aforementioned pro(isions of the $e(ised NBC I$$, the
petitioners ar%ue, are contrary to existin% la,s particularly
$epu5lic >ct No) *== 0$> No) *==1 other,ise 9no,n as ?&he Ci(il
En%ineerin% 2a,?, and /residential Decree No) 1"!@ 0/D 1"!@1
other,ise 9no,n as ?&he National Buildin% Code of the
/hilippines)?
&he architects, on the other hand, inter(enor+appellees in
this case, as ,ell as the pu5lic respondent+appellee Secretary of
/u5lic 8or9s and 7i%h,ays, ar%ue other,ise and deny that the
su54ect pro(isions in the $e(ised NBC I$$ are contrary to existin%
la,s) &hey ar%ue that $> No) *== and /D 1"!@ ha(e 5een
repealed or modified accordin%ly 5y $epu5lic >ct No) !@@
other,ise 9no,n as ?&he >rchitecture >ct of ""=? particularly
Section " 01 and 0*1, >rticle III, and Sections * and !, >rticle
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 1(
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
I;, thereof, ,hich are so irreconcila5ly inconsistent and repu%nant
to the la,s cited and in(o9ed 5y the petitioners)
>ll the assi%ned errors 5oil do,n to the follo,in% focal
issues-
1) 8hether $> *== and /D 1"!@ authoriDe ci(il en%ineers to
si%n and seal plans enumerated in Section .")= of the $e(ised
NBC I$$G
) 8hether in fact there is an o(erlappin% of functions
5et,een architects and ci(il en%ineers)
.) 8hether $> !@@ or the >rchitecture >ct of ""=
repealed $> *== of the Ci(il En%ineerin% 2a, and /D 1"!@+the
National Buildin% Code)
=) 8hether the trial court erred in rulin% that forum
shoppin% ,as present in this case)
&he Court finds merit in this appeal)
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 17
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
RA 544 and PD 1096 allow Civil Engineer !o "ign and "eal
#Ar$%i!e$!&ral# Do$&'en!
>s to the first assi%ned error, the petitioners+appellants
ar%ue that the trial court erred in rulin% that $> *== or the Ci(il
En%ineerin% 2a,, particularly Sections and . thereof, does not
state in clear and une:ui(ocal lan%ua%e that ci(il en%ineers can
prepare, si%n and seal architectural documents)
<irst, it is imperati(e to identify ,hat documents the la,
considers as ?architectural documents)? &he Court notes at the
outset that ,hat specific documents are considered as
?architectural documents? are !#t spelled out in the Old
>rchitecture 2a, 0$> *=*1 nor in the >rchitecture >ct of ""= 0$>
!@@1 5ut only under the implementin% rules and re%ulations of
the National Buildin% Code) In other ,ords, ,hile these
documents are 5ein% la5eled as ?architectural? documents, there
appears to 5e nothin%, either in the old architecture la, nor in the
""= architecture act, to indicate that these documents are
exclusive to architects and can 5e prepared only 5y them except
the fact that they are 5ein% la5eled as such) &he la5elin% or the
enumeration, therefore, of the documents specified as
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 1&
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
?architectural? in nature in the $e(ised NBC I$$ appears to 5e
,ithout any 5asis in the t,o architecture la,s)
Neither can the 5asis 5e found in /D 1"!@ or the National
Buildin% Code) On that score, it 5ears stressin% that the $e(ised
NBC I$$ are merely rules and re%ulations ,hich see9 to
implement /D 1"!@ ,hich is its ena5lin% la,) If the la5elin% of
such documents as ?architectural? in nature is not found in the t,o
architecture la,s+ $> *=* and $> !@@, nor co(ered in /D 1"!@,
then the Court is of the (ie, that the D/87 Secretary may ha(e
o(erstepped its rule ma9in% po,er ,hen it la5eled documents as
?architectural? in nature in the implementin% rules a5sent any
5asis in la, for such a :ualification) &he rule+ma9in% po,er of
administrati(e a%encies, it 5ears stressin%, must 5e c#!$i!e% t#
%et"ils $#r re'ul"ti!' the &#%e #r )r#cee%i!'s t# c"rry i!t#
e$$ect the l"+ "s it h"s -ee! e!"cte%, and it c"!!#t -e exte!%e%
t# "&e!% #r ex)"!% the st"tut#ry re/uire&e!ts #r t# e&-r"ce
&"tters !#t c#vere% -y the st"tute) >dministrati(e re%ulations
must al,ays 5e in harmony ,ith the pro(isions of the la, 5ecause
any resultin% discrepancy 5et,een the t,o ,ill al,ays 5e
resol(ed in fa(or of the 5asic la,) (Office of the Solicitor General vs.
Ayala Land Inc., GR No. 17705, Se!te"#er 1$, %00&'
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 19
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
In any case, comparin% Section ."0=1 of the disputed
$e(ised NBC I$$ 0afore:uoted1 and Section .))1 of 'O No)*B
0afore:uoted1, ?architectural documents? appear to 5e the
follo,in%- 11 2ocation /lanG 1 Site De(elopment /lanG .1 <loor
/lansG =1 Ele(ationsG *1 SectionsG @1 <oundation planG B1 <loor+
framin% planG #1 $oof+framin% planG !1 Details of footin%6columnG
1"1 Details of Structural mem5ers) <rom the fore%oin%, the Court
discerns that ,hat are considered ?architectural documents? 5y
the implementin% rules and re%ulations of the National Buildin%
Code are essentially (arious %#cu&e!ts )ert"i!i!' t# the %esi'!
#$ " -uil%i!' #r structure)
No,, the threshold :uestion to 5e ans,ered is can ci(il
en%ineers prepare plans and specifications pertainin% to the
desi%n of a 5uildin% or structure and si%n and seal the sameJ
&he Court ans,ers in the affirmati(e)
It is true that the same documents enumerated under Section
."0=1 of the $e(ised NBC I$$ are !#t mentioned either in the
Ci(il En%ineerin% 2a, or $> *==) 7o,e(er, $> *== explicitly
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 20
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
pro(ides that the practice of ci(il en%ineerin% i!clu%es the
deigning #$ -uil%i!'s)
Section and . of $> *== pro(ides as follo,s-
?Section ) Definition of terms) K 0a1 &he )r"ctice #$
civil e!'i!eeri!' ,ithin the meanin% and intent of this >ct
shall em5race services i! the $#r& #$ c#!sult"ti#! %esi'!
)re)"r"ti#! #$ )l"!s s)eci$ic"ti#!s esti&"tes erecti#!
i!st"ll"ti#! "!% su)ervisi#! #$ the c#!structi#! #$ streets
-ri%'es hi'h+"ys r"ilr#"%s"ir)#rts "!% h"!'"rs )#rt+#r0s
c"!"ls river "!% sh#re i&)r#ve&e!ts li'hth#uses "!% %ry
%#c0s1 -uil%i!'s $ixe% structures $#r irri'"ti#! $l##%
)r#tecti#! %r"i!"'e +"ter su))ly "!% se+er"'e +#r0s1
%e&#liti#! #$ )er&"!e!t structures1 "!% tu!!els2 &he
e!u&er"ti#! #$ "!y +#r0 i! this secti#! sh"ll !#t -e
c#!strue% "s exclu%i!' "!y #ther +#r0 re/uiri!' civil
e!'i!eeri!' 0!#+le%'e "!% "))lic"ti#!)
xxx xxx xxx
Section .) Pre)"r"ti#! #$ )l"!s "!% su)ervisi#! #$
c#!structi#! -y re'istere% civil e!'i!eer) K It shall 5e
unla,ful for any person to order or other,ise cause the
construction, reconstruction, or alteration of "!y -uil%i!' #r
structure i!te!%e% $#r )u-lic '"theri!' #r "sse&-ly such "s
the"ters ci!e&"t#'r")hs st"%i" churches #r structures #$ li0e
!"ture, "!% "!y #ther e!'i!eeri!' structures &e!ti#!e% i!
secti#! t+# of this >ct u!less the %esi'!s )l"!s "!%
s)eci$ic"ti#!s #$ s"&e h"ve -ee! )re)"re% u!%er the
res)#!si-le ch"r'e #$ "!% si'!e% "!% se"le% -y " re'istere%
civil e!'i!eer and unless the construction, reconstruction
and6or alteration thereof are executed under the responsi5le
char%e and direct super(ision of a ci(il en%ineer) Pl"!s "!%
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 21
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
%esi'!s #$ structures must 5e appro(ed as pro(ided 5y la, or
ordinance of a city or pro(ince or municipality ,here the said
structure is to 5e constructed)? 0emphasis and underscorin%
supplied1
Clear from the afore:uoted sections of the Ci(il En%ineerin%
2a, is the express authority %ranted to ci(il en%ineers to render
ser(ices of %esi'!i!' "s +ell "s the )re)"r"ti#! #$ )l"!s "!%
s)eci$ic"ti#!s $#r v"ri#us -uil%i!'s)
/ri(ate respondents Anited >rchitects of the /hilippines
0A>/1 ar%ue in their appeal 5rief that the term ?5uildin%? as it is
5ein% used in sections and . of $> *== should 5e interpreted to
mean that it is in some ,ay connected ,ith ,ater,or9s and that it
precludes 5uildin%s for residential purposes and those not
intended for pu5lic %atherin%) &hus, appellee A>/ insists that the
express %rant to ci(il en%ineers to prepare and si%n documents is
limited to the aforementioned structures follo,in% the principle of
noscit(r a sociis or associated ,ords)
&he Court does not a%ree)
It is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that in
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 22
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
interpretin% the meanin% and scope of a term used in the la,, a
careful re(ie, of the +h#le la, in(ol(ed, as ,ell as the
intendment of the la,, must 5e made) 0Al!ha Investi)ation and
Sec(rity A)ency, Inc. vs. NLR*, ..! /hil) =", == 01!!B11
In the present case, the Court notes Section 1* 0c1 of $> *==
pro(ides as follo,s-
? Section 1*) Exemption from re%istration+
xxx xxx xxx
01 A!y )ers#! residin% in the /hilippines &"y &"0e
)l"!s #r s)eci$ic"ti#!s for any of the follo,in%-
0a1 A!y -uil%i!' i! ch"rtere% cities #r i! t#+!s +ith
-uil%i!' #r%i!"!ces, !#t excee%i!' the s)"ce re/uire&e!t
s)eci$ie% therei!, re/uiri!' the services #$ " civil e!'i!eer)
xxx xxx xxx
0c1 /ro(ided, ho,e(er, &hat there shall 5e !#thi!' i!
this Act th"t +ill )reve!t "!y )ers#! $r#& c#!structi!' his
#+! 3+##%e! #r li'ht &"teri"l4 resi%e!ti"l h#use utili5i!' the
services #$ " )ers#! #r )ers#!s re/uire% $#r th"t )ur)#se
+ith#ut the use #$ " civil e!'i!eer "s l#!' "s he %#es !#t
vi#l"te l#c"l #r%i!"!ces #$ the )l"ce +here the -uil%i!' is t#
-e c#!structe%2 ? 0emphasis and underscorin% supplied1
Clearly, considerin% that the said pro(ision allo,s a person,
not a re%istered ci(il en%ineer, to ma9e plans and specifications
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 23
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
for any 5uildin% so lon% as it does not exceed the space
re:uirements and to construct a residential house ,ithout the use
of a ci(il en%ineer so lon% as it is made of li%ht and ,ooden
materials, it follo,s then that the %eneral rule is that the plans and
specifications for the construction of "!y 5uildin%, includin% a
residential house, may re:uire the use of a ci(il en%ineer unless it
is exempted from doin% so) 7ence, to this Court it is not correct to
interpret the term ?5uildin%?, as it is 5ein% used in $> *==, to
mean that 5uildin%s for residential purposes and those not
intended for pu5lic %atherin% are outside the scope of the ci(il
en%ineerCs authority)
'oreo(er, it does not ma9e sense to the Court that ci(il
en%ineers ,ould not ha(e the authority to prepare plans and
specifications for residential 5uildin%s and structures not intended
for pu5lic %atherin% or assem5ly ,hen the ci(il en%ineer has the
authority to prepare desi%ns, plans and specifications for
structures intended for pu5lic %atherin% or assem5ly such as
theaters, shoppin% malls, office 5uildin%s, schools, airport
terminals etc)) >s it is, the Court finds no plausi5le and rational
explanation as to ,hy ci(il en%ineers ,ould not ha(e the expertise
to prepare plans for residential 5uildin%s ,hen it has the expertise
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 24
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
to prepare plans for a lar%e 5uildin% such as a shoppin% mall)

&here should 5e no distinction in the application of the la,
,here none is indicated) (Lo *ha" vs. Oca"!o, 77 +hil. ,, (1&-''
8here the la, does not distin%uish, courts should not distin%uish)
.#i le/ non distin)(it nec nos distin)(ere de#e"os. (*o""issioner of
Internal Reven(e vs. *OA, %1$ S*RA %0,, (1&&,''
&hat ci(il en%ineers are allo,ed to desi%n 5uildin%s is
further sho,n in Section ."# of /D No) 1"!@ or the National
Buildin% Code ,hich pro(ides as follo,s-
LSection ."#) Inspection and Super(ision of 8or9) K
&he o,ner of the Buildin% ,ho is issued or %ranted a 5uildin%
permit under this Code shall en%a%e the ser(ices of a duly
licensed architect or ci(il en%ineer to underta9e the full time
inspection and super(ision of the construction ,or9)
Such architect or ci(il en%ineer may or may not 5e the
same architect or ci(il en%ineer ,ho is res)#!si-le $#r the
%esi'! of the 5uildin%)
It is understood ho,e(er that in either case, the
desi%nin% architect or ci(il en%ineer is not precluded from
conductin% inspection of the construction ,or9 to chec9 and
determine compliance ,ith the plans and specifications of the
5uildin% as su5mitted)
&here shall 5e 9ept at the 4o5site at all times a lo%5oo9
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 2#
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
,herein the actual pro%ress of construction includin% tests
conducted, ,eather conditions and other pertinent data are to
5e recorded)
Apon completion of the construction, the said licensed
architect or ci(il en%ineer shall su5mit the lo%5oo9, duly si%ned
and sealed, to the Buildin% Official) 7e shall also prepare and
su5mit a Certificate of Completion of the pro4ect statin% that the
construction of 5uildin% conforms to the pro(isions of this
Code as ,ell as ,ith the appro(ed plans and specifications)M
&hat ci(il en%ineers are allo,ed to prepare, si%n and seal
plans and specifications pertainin% to architectural and structural
plans can also 5e seen in Section ." of /D 1"!@ ,hich pro(ides
as follo,s-
LSection .") >pplication for permits) K
In order to o5tain a 5uildin% permit, the applicant shall file an
application therefor in ,ritin% and on the prescri5ed form from
the office of the Buildin% Official) E(ery application shall
pro(ide at least the follo,in% information-
011 > description of the ,or9 to 5e co(ered 5y the permit
applied forG
01 Certified true copy of the &C& co(erin% the lot on ,hich the
proposed ,or9 is to 5e done) If the applicant is not the
re%istered o,ner, in addition to the &C&, a copy of the contract
of lease shall 5e su5mittedG
0.1 &he use or occupancy for ,hich the proposal ,or9 is
intendedG
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 2(
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
0=1 Estimated cost of the proposed ,or9)
&o 5e su5mitted to%ether ,ith such application "re "t le"st $ive
sets #$ c#rres)#!%i!' )l"!s "!% s)eci$ic"ti#!s )re)"re%
si'!e% "!% se"le% -y " %uly lice!se% "rchitect #r civil
e!'i!eer i! c"se #$ "rchitectur"l "!% structur"l )l"!s
mechanical en%ineer in case of mechanical plans, and 5y a
re%istered electrical en%ineer in case of electrical plans, except
in those cases exempted or not re:uired 5y the Buildin% Official
under this Code)M
&he Court is mindful that it has 5een ar%ued in this case that
the aforesaid statement as it appears, emphasiDed a5o(e, does not
appear in the official (ersion of the National Buildin% Code, as
!(#lished
1,
in the Official 3aDette) Inter(enors+appellees A>/
alle%e that the last para%raph of Section .", as pu5lished in the
Official 3aDette, only reads as follo,s-
?&o 5e su5mitted to%ether ,ith such application "re "t
le"st $ive sets #$ c#rres)#!%i!' )l"!s "!% s)eci$ic"ti#!s
)re)"re% si'!e% "!% se"le% -y " %uly mechanical en%ineer in
case of mechanical plans, and 5y a re%istered electrical en%ineer
in case of electrical plans, except in those cases exempted or not
re:uired 5y the Buildin% Official under this Code)M
1=
0emphasis
supplied1
7o,e(er, a re(ie, of other official copies of the National
13
Record Vol. II pp. &1(-&2#
14
Record Vol. II p.&22
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 27
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
Buildin% Code, particularly the copy
1*
stored in the National
2i5rary, ,hich also 5ears the si%nature of then /resident
<erdinand E) 'arcos, ,ould re(eal the contrary)
1@
O5(iously,
therefore, the copy that ,as pu5lished in the Official 3aDette
contained a clerical or ty!o)ra!hical error or a "is!rint as it renders
the pro(ision meanin%less and inopera5le since it left out the
plans and specifications of the architect and the ci(il en%ineer)
Should the copy of /D 1"!@ as it appears in the Official
3aDette, fla,ed as it may 5e, 5e the controllin% copyJ
&he Court does not thin9 so)
Considerin% that the typo%raphical error is manifestly
o5(ious in (ie, of the fact that the different official copies of the
same la, are totally opposed ,ith one another, prudence dictates
that the (ersion that renders the statute opera5le or the one that
%i(es the statute sensi5le meanin% and purpose 5e the one
preferred) &o this Court, considerin% that the (ersion pu5lished in
the Official 3aDette contains a clerical6typo%raphical error or a
misprint, resort must 5e made ,ith the other official copies of the
1#
Record Vol. III pp. 140(-147&
1(
Record Vol. III p. 1421
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 2&
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
la,, particularly the copy stored in the National 2i5rary)
Overla!!in) of 0(nctions
It has of course 5een ar%ued in this case that ci(il en%ineers
are not simply :ualified or that they do not ha(e the expertise in
desi%nin%) Inter(enors+appellees A>/ (ehemently ar%ue that the
ci(il en%ineerin% curriculum does not ha(e any su54ects pertainin%
to architectural desi%n or plannin%) 7o,e(er, e(en assumin% it to
5e true that ci(il en%ineerin% does not ha(e any su54ects
pertainin% to architectural desi%n, the Court is of the (ie, that
such omission does not mean that ci(il en%ineers are not :ualified
to desi%n 5uildin%s 5ut rather that in terms of desi%nin% structures
,ith aesthetics in mind architects ,ould ha(e an ad(anta%e o(er
ci(il en%ineers) &o reiterate, it is clear from the Ci(il En%ineerin%
2a, and the National Buildin% Code, as discussed a5o(e, that the
practice of ci(il en%ineerin% also i!clu%es the %esi'! #$
-uil%i!'s)

It cannot 5e denied that architecture and ci(il en%ineerin%
are professions that are 5oth en%a%ed in the desi%n and
construction of structures and often had o(erlappin% functions) In
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 29
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
fact, until modern times there ,as no clear distinction 5et,een
ci(il en%ineerin% and architecture, and the term en%ineer and
architect ,ere mainly %eo%raphical (ariations referrin% to the
same person, often used interchan%ea5ly) (as !er
htt!122en.3i4i!edia.or)23i4i2*ivil5en)ineerin) citin) 6he Architect(re
of the Italian Renaissance #y 7aco# 8(rc4hardt IS8N 09$05%910$%9% '
In fact, this o(erlappin% of function+ that the ci(il en%ineers
could prepare plans and specifications that ,ere also prepared 5y
architects+ could 5e clearly seen in Section 1 of the Old
>rchitecture 2a, 0$> *=*1) >s explicitly pro(ided in the said
section-
?Section 1) $e%istration of architects re:uired) K In
order to safe%uard life, health and property, !# )ers#! sh"ll
)r"ctice "rchitecture i! this c#u!try #r e!'"'e i! )re)"ri!'
)l"!s s)eci$ic"ti#!s #r )reli&i!"ry %"t" $#r the erecti#! #r
"lter"ti#! #$ "!y -uil%i!' l#c"te% +ithi! the -#u!%"ries #$
this c#u!try e($e)! i! this l"st c"se +he! he is " %uly
re'istere% civil e!'i!eer or use the title ?>rchitect?, or display
or use any title, si%n, card, ad(ertisement, or other de(ice to
indicate that such person practices or offers to practice
architecture, or is an architect, unless such person shall ha(e
secured from the examinin% 5ody a certificate of re%istration in
the manner hereinafter pro(ided, and shall thereafter comply
,ith the pro(isions of the la,s of the /hilippines %o(ernin% the
re%istration and licensin% of architects)? 0emphasis and
underscorin% supplied1
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 30
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
&he o(erlappin% of functions 5et,een a ci(il en%ineer and
an architect ,as also clearly seen in Section .) of the Old I$$
,hich allo,ed either a duly licensed architect or ci(il en%ineer to
prepare, si%n and seal architectural and structural plans) In fact,
the o(erlappin% of functions 5et,een professions is clearly
reco%niDed under the $e(ised NBC I$$ ,hich states in Section
.").
1B
that architectural interior6interior desi%n documents can 5e
si%ned either 5y architects or 5y interior desi%ners)
If ci(il en%ineers ,ere allo,ed to prepare, si%n and seal
documents that ,ere la5eled as architectural documents under the
Old I$$, ,hy then the sudden chan%e in the $e(ised NBC I$$ J
In the appealed decision, the trial court held that the Ci(il
En%ineerin% 2a, 0$> *==1 and the National Buildin% Code 0/D
17
LSEC&ION .") >pplication for /ermits
xxx xxx xxx
.) <i(e 0*1 sets of sur(ey plans, desi%n plans, specifications and other documents prepared,
si%ned
and sealed o(er the printed names of the duly licensed and re%istered professionals 0<i%s)
III)1)
and III))1-
xxx xxx xxx
5) >rchitect, in case of architectural documentsG in case of
architectural interior6interior desi%n documents, either an architect or interior desi%ner may
si%nGM
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 31
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
1"!@1 ,ere deemed to ha(e 5een repealed or modified accordin%ly
5y the >rchitectural >ct of ""= 0$> !@@1)
&he Court cannot a%ree)
RA 544 and PD 1096 $anno! *e re)ealed *+ RA 9,66
<irst, the Court finds no such intent to expressly repeal $>
*== or /D !@@) It is true that $> !@@ contains a repealin%
clause
1#
,hich repeals $> *=* and all other la,s, orders, rules
and re%ulations or resolutions or part6s thereof inconsistent ,ith
the pro(isions of $> !@@) 7o,e(er, settled is the rule that a
declaration in a statute, usually in its repealin% clause, that a
particular and specific la,, identified 5y its num5er and title is
repealed, is an express repealG all other repeals are implied repeals
0:ecano vs. *o""ission on A(dit, %1 S*RA 500, 50- (1&&%'' In this
case, $> *== and /D 1"!@ ,ere not specifically mentioned in the
repealin% clause of $> !@@)
Second, the Court cannot consider $> *== and /D 1"!@ as
1&
SEC;ION 4(. Repealing Clause. - Rep39l)c Ac No. #4#$ as a.e*ded 9" Rep39l)c Ac No. 1#&1
)s /ere9" repealed a*d all o/er la0s$ orders$ r3les a*d re73la)o*s or resol3)o*s or par1s /ereo+
)*co*s)se* 0)/ /e pro-)s)o*s o+ /)s Ac are /ere9" repealed or .od)+)ed accord)*7l".
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 32
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
ha(in% 5een impliedly repealed 5y $> !@@) Elementary is the
rule that repeal of la,s should 5e made clear and expressed)
$epeals 5y implication are not fa(ored as la,s are presumed to 5e
passed ,ith deli5eration and full 9no,led%e of all la,s existin%
on the su54ect) (*ity Govern"ent of San +a#lo, La)(na vs. Reyes, ,05
S*RA ,5, (1&&&'' Such repeals are not fa(ored for a la, cannot 5e
deemed repealed unless it is clearly manifest that the le%islature so
intended it) (Intia, 7r. vs. *o""ission on A(dit, ,0 S*RA 5&,,
(1&&&'' &he failure to add a specific repealin% clause indicates that
the intent ,as not to repeal any existin% la,, unless an
irreconcila5le inconsistency and repu%nancy exist in the terms of
the ne, and old la,s) (i#id'
In the present case, the Court finds no such inconsistency or
repu%nancy 5et,een $> !@@ and $> *== and /D 1"!@) In fact,
the aforesaid la,s are different from each other since they %o(ern
inherently different su54ect matters) $> !@@ is a special la,
,hich %o(erns the practice of architecture ,hile $> *== is the
special la, %o(ernin% the practice of ci(il en%ineerin% and /D
1"!@ is the la, institutin% a National Buildin% Code) 7ence, the
Court is of the (ie, that $> !@@ can only repeal the old la,
%o(ernin% the practice of architecture or $> *=* and !#t $> *==
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 33
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
,hich %o(erns the practice of ci(il en%ineerin%) Neither can $>
!@@ repeal /D 1"!@ ,hich is totally unrelated to $> !@@)
&he trial court further ruled that the explanatory note of $>
!@@ re(eals an e(ident intent to delineate the ri%hts of ci(il
en%ineers to prepare, si%n and seal 5uildin% plans) 7o,e(er, an
explanatory note cannot 5e used as 4ustification to read a meanin%
that does not appear, nor is reflected, in the lan%ua%e of a statute,
5ein% ,ritten only 5y the author6proponent of the 5ill and a mere
expression of the authorCs (ie,s and reasons for the proposed
le%islation and may not accordin%ly o(erride the clear le%islati(e
intent as expressed in the statute itself) (see +eo!le vs. Garcia, $5
+hil 57 (1&50'; *hon) <(n) 0a vs. Gian=on, &7 S*RA &1, (1&55'; and
G(="an vs. :(nici!ality of 6aytay, 5 +hil ,-0 (1&,$''
In this case, it is the considered (ie, of the Court that the
clear le%islati(e intent as expressed in Section =.
1!
of $> !@@ is
that the said la, sh"ll !#t -e c#!strue% t# "$$ect #r )reve!t the
)r"ctice #$ "!y #ther le'"lly rec#'!i5e% )r#$essi#!2 It is
important to note at this point that ci(il en%ineers, in the exercise
of their le%ally reco%niDed profession, ha(e 5een si%nin% and
19
SEC;ION 43. Ac No A++ec)*7 O/er 4ro+ess)o*als. - ;/)s Ac s/all *o 9e co*sr3ed o a++ec or
pre-e* /e prac)ce o+ a*" o/er le7all" reco7*)<ed pro+ess)o*.
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 34
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
sealin% the so called architectural documents ,hich include the
;icinity 'ap62ocation /lan, Site De(elopment /lan, /erspecti(e,
<loor /lans, Ele(ations, Sections, $eflected Ceilin% plans and the
li9e) >s pre(iously discussed, the ci(il en%ineers ,ere expressly
%i(en such authority to prepare, si%n and seal these 5uildin%
documents under /D 1"!@ and the Old I$$) 7ence, the practice of
ci(il en%ineerin% cannot 5e affected or pre(ented 5y $> !@@)
-o For&' "%o))ing
<inally, the Court is of the (ie, that the trial court erred in
concludin% that forum shoppin% ,as present in this case) It is true
that Ci(il Case No) E+"*+**B. pendin% 5efore Branch 1! of the
$&C of EueDon City ,as similarly :uestionin% the assailed
pro(ision in the $e(ised NBC I$$) 7o,e(er, the Court notes that
the complaint in Ci(il Case No) E+"*+**B. ,as ,ithdra,n 5y the
parties
"
and su5se:uently %is&isse% 5y the trial court on July 1#,
""@)
1

>s explained 5y the Supreme Court in <o(n) vs. 7ohn >en)
Sen), G.R. No. 1-,--, :arch 05, %00,-
20
see par. 90$ p.(1Appellee=s >r)e+ +or ?A4 %Rollo p. 241'
21
see Order$ daed 23l" 1&$ 200( %Record Vol. III pp. 1#13-1#14'
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 3#
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
?It is said that forum shoppin% is committed 5y a party
,ho, ha(in% recei(ed an ad(erse 4ud%ment in one forum, see9s
another opinion in another court, other than 5y appeal or the
special ci(il action of certiorari) 'ore accurately, ho,e(er,
forum shoppin% is the institution of t,o or more suits in
different courts, either simultaneously or successi(ely, in order
to as9 the courts to rule on the same or related causes and6or to
%rant the same or su5stantially the same reliefs) It is an act of
malpractice that is prohi5ited and condemned 5ecause it trifles
,ith the courts and a5uses their processes) It de%rades the
administration of 4ustice and adds to the already con%ested
court doc9ets)? 0emphasis and underscorin% supplied1
>nd in 8riones vs. ?enson9*r(=, G.R. No. 15&1,0, A()(st %%,
%00$ -
?<orum shoppin% is the act of a liti%ant ,ho ?repetiti(ely
a(ailed of se(eral 4udicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successi(ely, all su5stantially founded on the
same transactions and the same essential facts and
circumstances, and all raisin% su5stantially the same issues
either pendin% in or already resol(ed ad(ersely 5y some other
court to increase his chances of o5tainin% a fa(ora5le decision if
not in one court, then in another)? It is directly addressed and
prohi5ited under Section *, $ule B of the 1!!B $ules of Ci(il
/rocedure, and is si%naled 5y the presence of the follo,in%
re:uisites- 011 identity of parties, or at least such parties ,ho
represent the same interests in 5oth actions, 01 identity of the
ri%hts asserted and the relief prayed for, the relief 5ein%
founded on the same facts, and 0.1 identity of the t,o precedin%
particulars such that any 4ud%ment rendered in the pendin%
case, re%ardless of ,hich party is successful, ,ould amount to
res @(dicata in the other) In simpler terms, the test to determine
,hether a party has (iolated the rule a%ainst forum shoppin% is
,here the elements of litis !endentia are present or ,here a final
4ud%ment in one case ,ill amount to res @(dicata in the other)?
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 3(
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
0emphasis and underscorin% supplied1
Simply put, considerin% the ,ithdra,al and conse:uent
dismissal of Ci(il Case No) E+"*+**B., the e(ils sou%ht to 5e
a(oided and pre(ented in forum shoppin% are already non+
existent) 7ence, it cannot 5e said that forum shoppin% exists in
this case)
*HEREFORE, in (ie, of all the fore%oin%, the appeal is
here5y 6RANTED) &he appealed Decision, dated January !,
""# is here5y REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a ne, one
entered as follo,s-
a1 Sections ."). and = of the $e(ised Implementin% $ules
and $e%ulations of the National Buildin% Code are here5y
declared null and (oid for 5ein% contrary to $epu5lic >ct *== and
/D 1"!@ insofar as they pre(ent ci(il en%ineers from exercisin%
their ri%ht to prepare, si%n and seal plans and desi%ns of 5uildin%s
such as ;icinity 'ap62ocation /lan, Site De(elopment /lan,
/erspecti(e, <loor /lans, Ele(ations, Sections, $eflected Ceilin%
/lans and the li9eG
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 37
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
51 Ci(il en%ineers are here5y declared to ha(e the ri%ht to
prepare, si%n and seal plans and specifications enumerated in
Section .")= of the $e(ised Implementin% $ules and $e%ulations
of the National Buildin% Code for su5mission to Buildin% Officials
as pro(ided for under $epu5lic >ct No) *== and /residential
Decree No) 1"!@)
SO ORDERED2
ROMEO F. #AR7A
Asso'iate %"sti'e
WE CONCUR:
NOEL G. TI%AM
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Ninth Division
E$*IN $. SORONGON
Associate Justice
CA-G.R.. CV No. 93917 3&
D E C I S I O N
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
/ursuant to >rticle ;III, Section 1. of the Constitution, it is
here5y certified that the conclusions in the a5o(e decision ,ere
reached in consultation 5efore the case ,as assi%ned to the ,riter
of the opinion of the Court)
NOEL G. TI%AM
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Ninth Division