Good News for Architects!
The Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued by the Court last June 1, 2005 on the provisions of the IRR of PD 1096 or the National Building Code, particularly Section 302(3) in relation to Section 302(4) was finally DISSOLVED by the Regional Trial Court Branch 22 in Manila. The court found the questioned provisions neither invalid nor unconstituional, and finding the petition devoid of merit, the petition was dismissed and the writ finally lifted and dissolved.
PETITIONERS CONTENTIONS and COURT RULINGS:
Petitioners asserted that "the case is about the practice of civil engineering because it assailed provisions restricting their practice..."
- Court rules that "the thrust of the petition is to invalidate the provisions of the revised IRR that are beneficial to the practice of architecture..."
Petitioners claimed that the asailed provisions of the revised IRR supplanted the NBC and the Civil Engineering Law, claiming that civil engineers have the right to prepare, sign and seal building plans including architectural documents required to be submitted in applying for building permits. This claim was based mainly on the version of Atty. Vicente Foz 2005 edition of "the National Building Code and its IRR" wherein he also cited cited "licensed architect or civil engineer in case of architectural and structural plans.
- Court ruled that the official and correct version of the law, as appearing in the Official Gazette and as found in the Malacanang Records office does not state the clause mentioned in Vicente Foz's version and so petitioners cannot invoke Section 302 of PD 1096 as the legal basis to justify their claim that civil engineers can prepare, sign and seal architectural plans.
Petitioners asserted that "the new IRR, if implemented, will arbitrarily deprived the civil engineers of their right to due process and equal protection of the law", assailing that civil engineers will be barred from preparing, signing and sealing plans and specifications enumerated in Section 302(4) of the IRR, and will deprived them of their right to practice part of their profession which they have been exercising fr more than a century. They also added that provisions of the IRR violate the due process clause of the Constitution and "constitute constraint of trade and of the profession of civil engineers".
- Court decided that "Section 2 and 23, Article 1 of RA 544 (the Civil Engineering Law) do not state in clear and unequivocal language that civil engineers can prepare, sign and seal architectural documents. It further said that "there is nothing in either the Civil Engineering Law or the Revised IRR of PD1096 that would indicate that the same "plans" enumerated under section 302(4) of the Revised IRR are the plans mentioned in Section 2 and 23 of RA544".
Petitioners claim that "any plan remotely connected with the construction of a building is covered by the practice of civil engineering"
-Court stated that the claim is "absurd", adding that under such interpretation, then "civil engineers also will be allowed to sign electrical, mechanical, sanitary, etc. documents, which is beyond their scope of practice and constitutes an overlapping of the different professions".
Petitioners argued that section 43 of RA9266 (New Architecture Law) provides that "this Act shall not be construed to affect or prevent the practice of any other legally recognized professions" and prescribes exercise by non-architects (especially civil engineers) of functions exclusively granted to architects, i.e., the preparation, signing and sealing of architectural documents.
-Court decided that Sec. 3 and 4 of RA9266 clearly indicate that the preparation and signing of "architectural documents" mentioned in the assailed provision in the revised IRR is within the scope of the practice of architecture, while Section 25 provides "as to who are qualified to practice architecture in the country". Section 20(5) of RA9266 states 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 this Act together with his/her professional identification card number and the date of expiration".
The writ was filed by Felipe F. Cruz Sr. and David M. Consunji against the Secretary of Public Works and Highways.
Stumble It!