DPWH vs. Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, Inc.

The Architecture Act of 2004 (R.A. No. 9266) impliedly repealed the Civil Engineering Law (R.A. No. 544) insofar as the latter permitted civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal architectural documents, because Section 20(5) of R.A. No. 9266 mandates that all architectural plans, designs, specifications, drawings, and architectural documents shall bear the seal and signature only of a registered and licensed architect, creating an irreconcilable inconsistency with the earlier grant of authority to civil engineers.

The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) is the agency tasked with promulgating the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Presidential Decree No. 1096, the National Building Code of the Philippines. The Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, Inc. (PICE) is the professional organization representing civil engineers, and Leo Cleto Gamolo is a civil engineer. The United Architects of the Philippines (UAP) is the professional organization representing architects. The dispute arises from the intersection of three statutes: P.D. No. 1096 (the National Building Code, 1977), R.A. No. 544 (the Civil Engineering Law, 1950), and R.A. No. 9266 (the Architecture Act of 2004), which respectively govern building permit requirements, the practice of civil engineering, and the practice of architecture. The central question is whether the Architecture Act of 2004 divested civil engineers of their previously recognized authority to prepare, sign, and seal architectural documents.

On March 17, 2004, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed Republic Act No. 9266, the Architecture Act of 2004, which took effect on April 10, 2004 after publication in two newspapers of general circulation. The law was enacted to provide a more responsive and comprehensive regulation for the registration, licensing, and practice of architecture, and it recognized the importance of architects in nation building. Among its key provisions, Section 20(5) mandates that all architectural plans, designs, specifications, drawings, and architectural documents relative to the construction of a building shall bear the seal and signature only of an architect registered and licensed under the Act.

On October 29, 2004, Acting Secretary Florante Soriquez of the DPWH signed and promulgated the 2004 Revised Implementing Rules of the National Building Code. Among the amendments introduced was Section 302, which limits to architects the authority to prepare, sign, and seal documents listed under Section 302(4), including vicinity maps, site development plans, perspectives, floor plans, elevations, sections, reflected ceiling plans, and other architectural documents. Civil engineers were authorized under Section 302(3)(c) to prepare, sign, and seal only civil/structural documents.

Leo Cleto Gamolo and the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, Inc. filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief and Injunction before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, praying that Section 302(3) and (4) of the 2004 Revised IRR be declared void and that civil engineers be authorized to prepare, sign, and seal the enumerated documents. They alleged that the 2004 Revised IRR violated R.A. No. 544 (the Civil Engineering Law) and the National Building Code insofar as it restricted civil engineers from practicing their profession. A similar petition was filed by Felipe Cruz, Sr. and David M. Consunji before the RTC of Quezon City. The United Architects of the Philippines moved to intervene in the Manila case, which was granted.

The RTC of Manila dismissed the petition on January 29, 2008, upholding the validity of the assailed provisions. It found nothing in R.A. No. 544 authorizing civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal the documents listed under Section 302(4), rejected respondents' reliance on a version of Section 302 of the National Building Code printed in Atty. Vicente Foz's textbook (which differed from the Official Gazette version), and ruled that R.A. No. 9266 had repealed or modified the earlier laws. The RTC also found that the filing of the Cruz Petition constituted forum shopping. The Court of Appeals reversed on January 5, 2012, declaring Section 302(3) and (4) null and void and ruling that civil engineers have the right to prepare, sign, and seal the enumerated documents under R.A. No. 544 and P.D. No. 1096. DPWH and UAP separately filed petitions for review before the Supreme Court, which were consolidated.

• Authority to Classify Architectural Documents (DPWH): Petitioner DPWH contended that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that it had no legal basis in categorizing certain documents as architectural in nature, since the plans and specifications listed under Section 302(4) are similar to those enumerated in Section 3.2.1 of Ministry Order No. 57, which have long been identified as architectural documents and were acknowledged by respondents as identical.
• Presumption of Legislative Knowledge (DPWH): Petitioner DPWH maintained that it is immaterial that architectural documents were not defined in R.A. No. 9266, since the Legislature is presumed to have enacted the law with due regard to Section 3.2.1 of Ministry Order No. 57, and would have expressly indicated if a different enumeration was being adopted.
• Issue Not Raised Below (DPWH): Petitioner DPWH argued that the parties did not raise the definition of architectural documents as an issue and that the Court of Appeals should not have ruled on it, since the parties agree on what architectural documents mean and the real question is whether civil engineers are authorized to prepare and sign them.
• R.A. No. 544 Does Not Authorize Civil Engineers (DPWH): Petitioner DPWH contended that nothing in R.A. No. 544 authorizes civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal architectural documents, and that this authority was only recognized in the version of Section 302 of the National Building Code printed in Atty. Foz's textbook, which is not the correct version as published in the Official Gazette.
• Official Gazette Version Controls (DPWH): Petitioner DPWH insisted that the Court of Appeals erred in relying on the National Library version of the National Building Code, which was not presented or formally offered in evidence before the RTC and cannot be subject of judicial notice.
• Implied Repeal by R.A. No. 9266 (DPWH): Petitioner DPWH claimed that R.A. No. 544 and the National Building Code have been impliedly modified or repealed by R.A. No. 9266 due to irreconcilable inconsistency, and that as a special law governing the practice of architecture, R.A. No. 9266 should prevail over the National Building Code.
• Police Power and Due Process (DPWH): Petitioner DPWH averred that the 2004 Revised IRR was enacted pursuant to the State's police power to ensure that only competent professionals prepare documents for building permits, and that civil engineers' right to substantive due process was not violated.
• Implementation of R.A. No. 9266 (UAP): Petitioner UAP argued that Section 302(3) and (4) merely implements R.A. No. 9266, specifically Sections 20(5), 25, 20(2), and the definition of architectural plans under Section 3(21) and (4).
• Legislative Intent to Delineate Professions (UAP): Petitioner UAP stressed that the 2004 Revised IRR was enacted to implement the Legislature's intent of delineating the functions of an architect and protecting the architectural profession from practice by other professionals, as reflected in R.A. No. 9266.
• Insufficient Educational Background of Civil Engineers (UAP): Petitioner UAP asserted that the educational background of civil engineers is insufficient to permit them to practice architecture or prepare and certify architectural documents, as compared to a normal architecture course with 10 semesters of mainstream architecture.
• Limited Authority Under R.A. No. 544 (UAP): Petitioner UAP maintained that Sections 2 and 23 of R.A. No. 544 do not grant civil engineers the unqualified right to prepare architectural plans but limit it to certain buildings and structures.
• Express Repeal (UAP): Petitioner UAP claimed that Section 12 of R.A. No. 545, which recognized civil engineers' authority to prepare, sign, and seal architectural plans, was expressly repealed by Section 46 of R.A. No. 9266, and that the intention to repeal is further evidenced by Section 25 and the deliberations of Congress.
• Forum Shopping (UAP): Petitioner UAP argued that respondents committed forum shopping by filing two similar cases before different tribunals.

• Validity of Civil Engineers' Authority Under R.A. No. 544: Respondents contended that the authority of civil engineers under Sections 2 and 23 of R.A. No. 544 to prepare plans, specifications, and estimates for buildings or structures should be interpreted to include all kinds of buildings, and that it would be illogical to limit their authority to complex buildings without including residential buildings.
• Contemporaneous Construction: Respondents insisted that Section 3.2 of the 1977 Implementing Rules of the National Building Code, which states that architectural and structural plans may be prepared by a licensed architect or civil engineer, should be regarded as contemporaneous construction of the law.
• Clerical Error in Official Gazette Version: Respondents argued that the Official Gazette version of Section 302 of the National Building Code contains an obvious clerical error, and that the controlling version should be the one stored in the National Library, which includes the phrase "licensed architect or civil engineer in case of architectural and structural plans."
• Section 308 of the National Building Code: Respondents pointed to Section 308, which provides that inspection and supervision of construction work may be performed by the architect or civil engineer who prepared the design, as further evidence of civil engineers' authority.
• Building Officials May Be Civil Engineers: Respondents claimed that under the National Building Code and the Local Government Code, building officials who approve building plans may be either architects or civil engineers, and that it would be irrational for civil engineers to approve building plans yet lack the right to prepare them.
• Section 43 of R.A. No. 9266: Respondents invoked Section 43, which states that the Act shall not be construed to affect or prevent the practice of any other legally recognized profession, as recognizing the Legislature's intent to respect civil engineers' rights.
• No Legal Basis for Classification: Respondents maintained that DPWH had no legal basis in classifying the documents under Section 302(4) as exclusively architectural, since these can be prepared by either architects or civil engineers.
• Overlapping Functions: Respondents averred that the functions of architects and civil engineers have long been overlapping, with both professionals authorized to prepare, sign, and seal the enumerated documents.
• Academic Curriculum Irrelevant: Respondents asserted that the competence of architects and civil engineers was not among the issues presented before the Court of Appeals and should not be resolved.
• No Repeal by R.A. No. 9266: Respondents argued that R.A. No. 544 and the National Building Code were not repealed or modified by R.A. No. 9266 since these laws cover different subject matters, and that the legislature would have expressly repealed or modified the earlier laws if that was the objective.
• No Forum Shopping: Respondents claimed that they did not commit forum shopping since not all elements of litis pendentia were established, as the Cruz Petition was withdrawn and later dismissed.

• Forum Shopping: Whether respondents committed forum shopping by filing the Gamolo Petition while the Cruz Petition was pending.
• Validity of Section 302(3) and (4): Whether Section 302(3) and (4) of the 2004 Revised IRR is valid.
• Authority Under the National Building Code: Whether the National Building Code authorizes civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal architectural plans.
• Authority Under R.A. No. 544: Whether R.A. No. 544 permits civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal architectural plans.
• Implied Repeal: Whether R.A. No. 9266 modified or repealed R.A. No. 544 and the National Building Code.

• Forum Shopping: No. Respondents did not commit forum shopping because there was no identity of parties between the Gamolo and Cruz Petitions, as the interests of the parties who filed the petitions are not intertwined despite all being civil engineers or a corporation of civil engineers.
• Validity of Section 302(3) and (4): Yes. Section 302(3) and (4) of the 2004 Revised IRR is valid, the DPWH Secretary not having exceeded rulemaking authority in classifying the enumerated documents as architectural, and the Architecture Act of 2004 having impliedly repealed the Civil Engineering Law insofar as it permitted civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal architectural documents.
• Authority Under the National Building Code: No. The controlling version of Section 302 of the National Building Code is the one published in the Official Gazette, which does not mention civil engineers in connection with architectural and structural plans; the phrase "licensed architect or civil engineer in case of architectural and structural plans" appearing in other versions was not published and therefore has no legal effect.
• Authority Under R.A. No. 544: Yes, but modified. R.A. No. 544 does authorize civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal plans and specifications for all buildings, including residential ones, as confirmed by reading Sections 2 and 23 together with Section 15(2)(c); however, this authority was modified by the enactment of R.A. No. 9266.
• Implied Repeal: Yes. R.A. No. 9266 impliedly repealed R.A. No. 544 insofar as it permits civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal architectural documents, because Section 20(5) of R.A. No. 9266 mandates that all architectural documents shall bear the seal and signature only of a licensed architect, creating an irreconcilable inconsistency with the earlier law.

• Forum Shopping: Forum shopping through litis pendentia requires identity of parties, identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, and identity of the two cases such that judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other. While the parties in both petitions were all civil engineers or a corporation of civil engineers, there was no community of interest between them. Without identity of parties, the element of litis pendentia was not satisfied. Even assuming arguendo that forum shopping occurred, the Court has the power to relax procedural rules when compelling circumstances warrant, given the far-reaching implications of the assailed provisions on the professions and society at large.

• Validity of Section 302(3) and (4): The classification of documents as architectural under Section 302(4) was not without foundation. The parties did not dispute what plans constitute architectural documents, as respondents had not previously questioned the categorization under Section 3.2.1 of Ministry Order No. 57 and acknowledged the similarity of the enumerated documents. The Legislature is presumed to have enacted R.A. No. 9266 with knowledge of Ministry Order No. 57's enumeration. Furthermore, the IRR of R.A. No. 9266 promulgated by the Board of Architecture defines "Architectural Documents" and "Architectural Plans" in terms similar to those in the 2004 Revised IRR. The DPWH Secretary therefore did not exceed rulemaking authority.

• Authority Under the National Building Code: The controlling version of Section 302 is the one published in the Official Gazette, pursuant to Article 2 of the Civil Code and the ruling in Tañada vs. Tuvera that publication must be in full or it is no publication at all. The Official Gazette version omits the phrase "licensed architect or civil engineer in case of architectural and structural plans," mentioning only mechanical and electrical engineers. Since this phrase was not included in the published version, it cannot be considered part of the law. The Court rejected the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the Official Gazette version contained a clerical error correctable by resort to the National Library copy, because the National Library version was not published and therefore cannot have legal effect. The principle of contemporaneous construction likewise cannot save the 1977 IRR's interpretation, because it conflicts with R.A. No. 9266. However, Section 308 of the National Building Code does recognize civil engineers' authority to inspect and supervise construction work.

• Authority Under R.A. No. 544: Sections 2 and 23 of R.A. No. 544, read together with Section 15(2)(c), authorize civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal plans and specifications for all buildings, including residential ones. Section 15(2)(c) implies that generally, plans and specifications for any building may require the use of a civil engineer unless exempted. This interpretation is supported by Section 3.2 of Ministry Order No. 57 and Section 12 of R.A. No. 545, both of which recognized civil engineers' authority to prepare architectural plans without limitation to certain building types. However, this authority was modified by the subsequent enactment of R.A. No. 9266.

• Implied Repeal: Repeals by implication are disfavored, and the two laws must be absolutely incompatible before implied repeal may be inferred. While R.A. No. 9266 and R.A. No. 544 cover different subject matters (architecture vs. civil engineering), both contain provisions regarding the preparation, signing, and sealing of plans relating to building construction. Section 20(5) of R.A. No. 9266 states that all architectural plans, designs, specifications, drawings, and architectural documents shall bear the seal and signature only of a registered and licensed architect. This creates an irreconcilable conflict with R.A. No. 544's grant of authority to civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal architectural documents. Section 43 of R.A. No. 9266, which provides that the Act shall not affect the practice of other professions, is a general provision that must yield to the specific mandate of Section 20 under the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant. The express repealing clause of R.A. No. 9266 repealed only R.A. No. 545, as amended, but the general clause repealing all laws inconsistent with the Act supports the implied repeal of R.A. No. 544 on this specific point.

• Repeal by Implication — A repeal by implication is not favored and will not be sustained unless it is convincingly and unambiguously apparent that the provisions of the two laws are irreconcilable and inconsistent. Implied repeal by irreconcilable inconsistency takes place when the two statutes cover the same subject matter and are so clearly inconsistent that both cannot be given effect. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that R.A. No. 9266 impliedly repealed R.A. No. 544 insofar as the latter permitted civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal architectural documents, because Section 20(5) of R.A. No. 9266 reserves this authority exclusively to licensed architects.

• Publication Requirement (Tañada vs. Tuvera) — Laws must be published in full in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation to take effect; publication must be in full or it is no publication at all. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the Official Gazette version of Section 302 of the National Building Code is controlling, and the phrase "licensed architect or civil engineer in case of architectural and structural plans" appearing in unpublished versions has no legal effect.

• Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant — A special and specific provision prevails over a general provision irrespective of their relative positions in the statute. The Court applied this principle to hold that Section 20 of R.A. No. 9266, which specifically deals with the preparation, signing, and sealing of architectural plans, prevails over Section 43, which generally provides that the Act shall not affect the practice of other professions.

• Contemporaneous Construction — The construction given to a statute by an administrative agency charged with its interpretation and application is entitled to great respect, unless such construction is in clear conflict with the governing statute, the Constitution, or other laws. The Court held that even assuming the 1977 IRR constituted contemporaneous construction, it may be disregarded when in clear contradiction with R.A. No. 9266.

• Presumption of Legislative Knowledge — In enacting a statute, the legislature is presumed to have deliberated with full knowledge of all existing laws and jurisprudence on the subject. The Court applied this presumption to infer that Congress enacted R.A. No. 9266 cognizant of Ministry Order No. 57's enumeration of architectural documents.

• Ejusdem Generis — Where general terms follow the designation of particular things or classes, the general term is construed to comprehend things of the same class as those specifically enumerated. The Court referenced this principle in interpreting the scope of civil engineers' authority under R.A. No. 544.

• Forum Shopping / Litis Pendentia — Forum shopping through litis pendentia requires (a) identity of parties or community of interest, (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, and (c) identity of the two cases such that judgment in one would amount to res judicata in the other. The Court found no identity of parties between the Gamolo and Cruz Petitions.

• "A repeal by implication is not favored in this jurisdiction. It will not be sustained unless it is convincingly and unambiguously apparent that the provisions of the two laws are irreconcilable and inconsistent. However, when the two laws are clearly repugnant and in conflict with one another, this Court is left without recourse but to concede that the earlier law has been impliedly repealed by the later law." — This opening passage frames the central doctrinal framework of the decision, establishing the standard for implied repeal that the Court ultimately applies to hold that R.A. No. 9266 impliedly repealed R.A. No. 544 on the specific issue of preparing architectural documents.

• "The publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws." — This quotation from Tañada vs. Tuvera, reaffirmed by the Court, underpins the ruling that the Official Gazette version of Section 302 of the National Building Code is the controlling version and that unpublished phrases in other copies have no legal effect.

• "Taking into consideration the irreconcilable conflict between the two laws, this Court recognizes that Republic Act No. 9266 has impliedly repealed Republic Act No. 544 insofar as it permits civil engineers to prepare, sign, and seal architectural documents." — This is the ratio decidendi of the case, stating the precise holding on the implied repeal issue.

• "Section 20 is a specific provision in Republic Act No. 9266 which specifically deals with practice of architecture as well as preparation, signing, and sealing of architectural plans. Meanwhile, Section 43 is a general provision which provides for the rule on respect for the practice of other professions. Applying the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant, the mandate under Section 20 prevails over the general enactment enshrined in Section 43." — This passage articulates the statutory construction principle resolving the apparent tension between Sections 20 and 43 of R.A. No. 9266.

• Tañada vs. Tuvera, 220 Phil. 422 (1985); 230 Phil. 528 (1986) — Controlling precedent on the publication requirement. The Court relied on this case to hold that the Official Gazette version of Section 302 of the National Building Code is controlling, as publication must be in full and unpublished portions have no legal effect.

• Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. vs. Military Shrine Services, 710 Phil. 317 (2013) — Followed. The Court cited this case for the proposition that unpublished portions of a law (there, a handwritten addendum; here, the phrase in the National Library version) never had any legal force and effect.

• Javier vs. Commission on Elections, 777 Phil. 700 (2016) — Followed. Cited for the doctrine that an implied repeal transpires when a substantial conflict exists between the new and prior laws, and that in the absence of an express repeal, a subsequent law cannot be construed as repealing a prior law unless irreconcilable inconsistency exists.

• Mecano vs. Commission on Audit, 290-A Phil. 272 (1992) — Followed. Cited for the two categories of repeal by implication: (1) irreconcilable conflict between provisions of two acts on the same subject matter, and (2) the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute.

• Commissioner of Customs vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 232 Phil. 641 (1987) — Followed. Cited for the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant, applied to hold that Section 20 (specific) prevails over Section 43 (general) of R.A. No. 9266.

• Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 280 Phil. 548 (1991) — Followed. Cited for the doctrine of contemporaneous construction, which the Court held cannot save the 1977 IRR's interpretation because it conflicts with R.A. No. 9266.

• Chua vs. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, 613 Phil. 143 (2009) — Followed. Cited for the definition and three ways of committing forum shopping.

• Villarica Pawnshop, Inc. vs. Spouses Gernale, 601 Phil. 66 (2009) — Followed. Cited for the requisites of litis pendentia.

• Article 2, Civil Code (as amended by E.O. No. 200) — Provides that laws shall take effect after fifteen days following completion of publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation. Applied to establish that the Official Gazette version of Section 302 of the National Building Code is the controlling version.

• Section 24, Chapter 6, Book I, Administrative Code — Provides that publication of any law in the Official Gazette shall be prima facie evidence of its authority. Applied to support the primacy of the Official Gazette version.

• Section 20(5), R.A. No. 9266 (Architecture Act of 2004) — Mandates that all architectural plans, designs, specifications, drawings, and architectural documents relative to the construction of a building shall bear the seal and signature only of an architect registered and licensed under the Act. Applied as the specific provision creating an irreconcilable conflict with R.A. No. 544 and the basis for implied repeal.

• Section 43, R.A. No. 9266 — Provides that the Act shall not be construed to affect or prevent the practice of any other legally recognized profession. Held to be a general provision that yields to the specific mandate of Section 20 under generalia specialibus non derogant.

• Section 46, R.A. No. 9266 — Repealing clause expressly repealing R.A. No. 545, as amended, and all other laws inconsistent with the Act. Noted as supporting the implied repeal of R.A. No. 544 on the specific issue of architectural documents.

• Sections 2 and 23, R.A. No. 544 (Civil Engineering Law) — Define the practice of civil engineering and require that plans for buildings intended for public gathering be prepared, signed, and sealed by a registered civil engineer. Interpreted to authorize civil engineers to prepare plans for all buildings, but held to have been impliedly repealed by R.A. No. 9266 insofar as architectural documents are concerned.

• Section 15(2)(c), R.A. No. 544 — Exemption from registration allowing any person to construct a residential house without a civil engineer. Read together with Sections 2 and 23 to support the interpretation that civil engineers' authority extends to all buildings.

• Section 12, R.A. No. 545 (Architecture Act of 1950) — Provided that a duly registered civil engineer may engage in preparing plans for the erection or alteration of any building. Noted as recognizing civil engineers' authority, but expressly repealed by Section 46 of R.A. No. 9266.

• Section 302, P.D. No. 1096 (National Building Code) — Governs application for building permits and the required plans and specifications. The Official Gazette version, which mentions only mechanical and electrical engineers, was held to be the controlling version.

• Section 308, P.D. No. 1096 — Provides that the owner shall engage a licensed architect or civil engineer for inspection and supervision of construction work. Recognized as supporting civil engineers' general authority, but not their authority to prepare architectural documents after R.A. No. 9266.

• Section 302(3) and (4), 2004 Revised IRR of P.D. No. 1096 — The assailed provisions limiting to architects the authority to prepare, sign, and seal architectural documents. Upheld as valid.

Lazaro-Javier, M. Lopez, J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred.