Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila

SIXTEENTH DIVISION

ERIC C. NACORDA, CA-G.R. SP NO. 161336*

Petitioner,
Members:

- versus - CORALES, P.B., Chairperson,

AMPUAN, A.D., and,
LAUIGAN, R.R.R., JJ.**

ARABELLA R. DE LEON, Promulgated:

Respondent.
MAY 27, 2022
x------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

AMPUAN, J.:

This is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 43 of the Rules of

Court assailing the Decision2 dated 2 May 2019 rendered by the
Professional Regulation Commission ("PRC") in Appeal Case No.
A-366.

The Antecedents

The late Gracita R. Abella ("Gracita") and the late Fidelino

Rodriguez, Jr. ("Fidelino") were the co-owners of an ancestral
house situated on two (2) parcels of land described as Lots 9 and
10, located at Guadalupe, San Nicolas, Cebu City. 3 The late
* This case was unloaded to the Ponente to form part of his Initial Case Load per Raffle dated
12 January 2021. The rollo of this case was transmitted to the Office of the Ponente on 20
January 2021. In line with the mandate of the Court of Appeals regarding the prompt
disposition of cases, the instant Decision is hereby rendered.
**Acting Third Member of the Sixteenth Division pursuant to Office Order No. 226-22-EDS

dated 18 May 2022.

1Rollo, pp. 21-46.
2 Ibid, pp. 48-53.
3 See Declaration of Real Property No. RD 200306 in the names of Fideleno Rodriguez and

Gracita S. Rodriguez, Rollo, p. 255 and dorsal portion.

 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 2 of 20
==============

Fidelino is survived by his wife, Eloisa Rodriguez ("Eloisa"), and

his daughter, Merl R. Hoffman ("Merl").4

Meanwhile, upon the death of Gracita, her heirs executed a

Special Power of Attorney dated 13 May 2007 and a Deed of
Donation dated 4 April 2008, which authorized respondent
Arabella R. De Leon (“respondent”) and her sister, Glen R. King
("Glen"), to possess and occupy the said ancestral house.5

Some time in 2006, petitioner Eric C. Nacorda (“petitioner”),

the architect hired by Eloisa and Merl allegedly caused the
demolition of a carport appended to the ancestral house.6

This spurred respondent to file a Complaint7 on 25 July 2007

before the Board of Architecture ("BOA"), where she alleged that
the carport adjoining the ancestral house was demolished by
petitioner without first securing her consent as well as of its
owners or the heirs of Gracita. Respondent further alleged that:
(1) the demolition was conducted without first securing the
necessary demolition permit from the barangay; (2) petitioner
failed to disclose the existence of the ancestral house in the sketch
plan submitted to the Zoning Department of Cebu City when he
applied for a zoning clearance; and (3) petitioner instructed his
workers to continue construction, despite the existence of a
suspension order.8

Due to petitioner's failure to file an answer within the

period prescribed, and upon motion of respondent, the BOA
declared him in default.9

4 See supra note 2 at p. 48; See also Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of Fideleno R. Rodriguez
Jr., Rollo, pp. 256-257.
5 See supra note 2 at pp. 48-49.
6 See Decision dated 3 March 2009, Rollo, pp. 91-97 at p. 91.
7 The Complaint filed with the PRC/BOA was not appended to any of the pleadings filed

before this Court.

8 See id at pp. 91-92.
9 See id. at p. 93.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 3 of 20
==============

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Motion to Set

Aside Order of Default10 dated 12 May 2008, where he explained
that: (1) the person who received the summons, his housekeeper,
did not understand the import of the same; as such, it was
mistakenly given to one of his construction workers, who failed to
hand it to him; (2) he was told by Eloisa that the construction
would be conducted at Lot 10 only; hence, he merely requested
for documents relative to the said lot; (3) Eloisa, being the owner
of Lot 10, the ancestral house and the carport, is not required to
secure anyone's consent in order to demolish the same; (4) since
he had no hand in the demolition of the carport, he cannot be held
liable for the same; (5) he prepared a corrected sketch plan, which
has not caused any damage to respondent; and (6) he did not
violate the suspension order issued by the Office of the Building
Official.

In its Order11 dated 22 July 2008, the BOA denied petitioner's

motion and allowed respondent to present evidence ex parte.

In support of her case, respondent presented the following

witnesses: herself, Elizabeth Bediña ("Elizabeth"), and Architect
Natalio Rodriguez, Jr. ("Arch. Natalio").12

Respondent reiterated her allegations in the Complaint

during her testimony. Meanwhile, Elizabeth testified that she
personally saw petitioner and his workers demolish the carport
from the 11th to the 14th of November in 2006. Finally, Arch.
Natalio affirmed respondent's ownership of the ancestral house
and the existence of the carport. He also testified that the sewer
pipe servicing respondent was damaged.13

10 Rollo, pp. 203-224.

11 Rollo, pp. 225-228.
12 See supra note 8.
13 See id.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 4 of 20
==============

Ruling of the BOA

In its Decision14 dated 3 March 2009, the BOA found

petitioner guilty of unethical conduct and suspended him from
the practice of architecture for a period of one (1) year. In so
ruling, the BOA opined that petitioner violated the Code of Ethics
for Architects, as well as Section 30115 of the National Building
Code16 by directing the demolition of the carport without first
securing the necessary permit from the barangay. Worse, the
demolition was done without the consent of respondent, who is a
co-owner of the property. The BOA also reprimanded petitioner
for failing to indicate the accurate information in the plans that he
had submitted to various government agencies, thereby
preventing the said agencies to accurately determine whether the
pertinent standards have been complied with. The dispositive
portion of the Decision states:

"WHEREFORE, the Board hereby finds the

respondent guilty of Unethical Conduct and
accordingly suspends him from the practice of
Architecture for a period of one ( 1 ) year effective from
the date this decision becomes final and executory and
to continue for the same period from the time he
surrenders to the Board his certificate of
registration/professional license and professional
identification card as registered architect.

Respondent is ordered to surrender to the Board

his Certificate of Registration / Professional License and
Professional Identification Card as registered architect
not later than five ( 5 ) days from receipt of this decision
and to desist from the practice of architecture under
pain of criminal prosecution.

14 Supra note 6.
15 SECTION 301. Building Permits. No person, firm or corporation, including any agency
or instrumentality of the government shall erect, construct, alter, repair, move, convert or
demolish any building or structure or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a
building permit therefor from the Building Official assigned in the place where the subject
building is located or the building work is to be done.
16 Presidential Decree No. 1096, “Adopting A National Building Code of the Philippines

Thereby Revising Republic Act Numbered Sixty-Five Hundred Forty One”.

 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 5 of 20
==============

Further, he is warned that a repetition of the same

or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more
severely.

SO ORDERED."17

Undaunted, petitioner elevated his case to the PRC.18

Decision of the PRC

In the assailed Decision19 dated 2 May 2019, the PRC

affirmed the findings of the BOA and ruled that petitioner was
indeed guilty of unethical conduct. In particular, it found that
respondent concealed the existence of the ancestral house erected
on top of Lots 9 and 10, as evinced by the testimony of Engineer
Joel Reston ("Engr. Reston"), the then acting City Zoning
Administrator of Cebu City, in a related civil case. To the PRC, the
fact that petitioner subsequently corrected the sketch plan is of no
moment, considering that the act of misrepresentation was
already committed when he submitted the incorrect sketch plans.

The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, the appeal of respondent-

appellant is DENIED. The decision of the Board of
Architecture dated 3 March 2009 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."20
(Emphasis in the original)

Hence, the instant Petition for Review.21

The Issues

17 Id at p. 97.
18 See Appellant's Brief dated 2 April 2009, Rollo, pp. 99-125.
19 See supra note 2.
20 See supra note 2 at p. 53.
21 Supra note 1.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 6 of 20
==============

Petitioner raises the following issues before Us:

I.

THE HONORABLE PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS

COMMISSION GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT HELD
THAT THE PETITIONER FAILED TO OBSERVE THE
LAWS AND REGULATIONS SET BY THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT UNIT OF CEBU CITY.

II.

THE HONORABLE PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS

COMMISSION GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT
FAILED TO REVERSE AND SET ASIDE THE
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE
DECLARING THE HEREIN PETITIONER IN
DEFAULT.

III.

THE HONORABLE PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS

COMMISSION GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT
FAILED TO REVERSE AND SET ASIDE THE
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE
DATED MARCH 3, 2019 FINDING HEREIN
PETITIONER GUILTY OF UNETHICAL CONDUCT,
and

IV.

IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE PROFESSIONAL

REGULATIONS COMMISSION GRIEVOUSLY ERRED
WHEN IT FAILED TO RULE THAT THE DECISION OF
THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE IMPOSING THE
PENALTY OF SUSPENSION OF ONE (1) YEAR IS
EXCESSIVE AND NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE
ACTS OF THE PETITIONER;22
(Emphasis in the original)

In summary, the issues to be resolved in this case are: (1)

whether the order of default issued against petitioner should be
overturned; (2) whether petitioner is guilty of unethical conduct;
22 See id. at pp. 26-27.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 7 of 20
==============

and (3) whether the penalty of suspension for one (1) year from
the practice of architecture is commensurate to his infraction.

The Ruling of this Court

We deny the petition.

In support of his Petition, petitioner maintains that: (1) there

is no evidence that would support the conclusion that he violated
any law or regulation; (2) the order of default issued against him
deprived him of due process; (3) his alleged negligence in failing
to file an answer was excusable, seeing as the summons were
given to his house helper, who did not understand the import of
the document; (4) the pieces of evidence presented were
insufficient in order to warrant a finding of unethical conduct; (5)
neither the carport nor the ancestral house belonged to
respondent; thus, their consent for the demolition of the carport
was unnecessary; (6) since the carport was erected without a
building permit, being an illegal structure, its demolition was
necessary and warranted; (7) the omission of the carport and the
ancestral house on the sketch plan was not intended to
misrepresent the various government agencies; (8) he is not
legally required by law to reflect the carport in the sketch plans
that he prepared; (9) in any case, he corrected the sketch plan that
was submitted; (10) the penalty of one (1) year suspension is too
excessive, considering that he had been very honest in all his
dealings.23

In her Comment24 dated 28 December 2019, respondent made

the following counter-arguments: (1) petitioner's attempts to
justify his failure to file an answer is incredible; (2) petitioner's
negligence in failing to file an answer is inexcusable; (3)
petitioner’s insistence that Eloisa and Merl are the sole owners of
23 See id. at pp. 29-43.
24 Rollo, pp. 332-359
 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 8 of 20
==============

the ancestral house and the carport are flawed and lack basis; (4) a
permit must be secured before the demolition of a building, as the
National Building Code does not make any distinction; (5)
petitioner's denial that he had a hand in the demolition of the
carport is a mere afterthought; (6) petitioner's action of starting
the construction before the building permit was issued is yet
another violation of the law; (7) Engr. Reston stated that
petitioner's failure to include the ancestral house and carport in
his sketch plan was malicious, as this led his office to assume that
an ocular inspection of the premises was no longer necessary; and
(8) Engr. Reston likewise repeatedly affirmed that there was
misrepresentation and concealment on the part of petitioner.

Afterwards, the parties filed their respective memoranda 25

reiterating their positions.

To begin, the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies,

such as the PRC, are generally accorded respect, if not finality,
especially as they are considered expert on matters within its
specific and specialized jurisdiction.26 Thus, absent any glaring
errors on the part of the PRC and the BOA, this court refrains
from disturbing their findings on the instant case.

In any case, an examination of the issues posed by petitioner

reveals that the PRC did not commit any error in rendering the
assailed Decision.

The BOA did not err in issuing the

order of default against petitioner

Petitioner decries the order of default issued against him by

the BOA, claiming that it deprived him of due process. He asserts
that he should not be faulted for his failure to file his answer,
25 See Memorandum for the Petitioner dated 11 October 2020, Rollo, pp. 330-355; See also
Memorandum for Respondent dated, 3 December 2020 Rollo, pp. 484-507.
26 See Victoria P. Cabral vs. Gregoria Adolfo, et al., G.R. No. 198160, 31 August 2016.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 9 of 20
==============

considering that the summons was received by his house helper

and that the latter failed to convey to him the import of the said
document. To petitioner, this constitutes as an excusable
negligence, which should have led the BOA to reconsider his
order of default.27 In order to support his claim, he cites Section
9,28 Article II of Republic Act ("R.A.") No. 9266.29

At the outset, We must correct petitioner's flawed reliance

on Section 930, Article II of R.A. No. 9266. The said provision only
deals with the removal of the members of the BOA, not registered
architects. This is evident from the fact that the cited provision is
under Article II of R.A. No. 9266, which tackles the Professional
Regulatory Board of Architecture, and not the registered
architects under their supervision.

Instead, seeing as petitioner sought the reconsideration of

the order of default issued against him, the applicable provision
in this case is Section 27, Article II of PRC Resolution No. 06-342,

27 See supra note 1 at pp. 30-32.

28 SECTION 9. Grounds for Suspension or Removal of Members of the Board. - The President of
the Philippines, upon the recommendation of the Commission, after giving the concerned
member an opportunity to defend himself in a proper administrative investigation to be
conducted by the Commission, may suspend or remove any member on the following
grounds: x x x
29An Act Providing for a More Responsive and Comprehensive Regulation for the

Registration, Licensing and Practice of Architecture, Repealing for the Purpose Republic Act
No. 545, As Amended, Otherwise Known As "An Act to Regulate the Practice of
Architecture in the Philippines," and for Other Purposes.
30 SECTION 9. Grounds for Suspension or Removal of Members of the Board. — The President

of the Philippines, upon the recommendation of the Commission, after giving the
concerned member an opportunity to defend himself in a proper administrative
investigation to be conducted by the Commission, may suspend or remove any member
on the following grounds:
(a) Neglect of duty or incompetence;

(b) Violation or tolerance of the violation of this Act, or its implementing rules
and regulations or the Code of Ethical Conduct and Standards of
Professional Practice;

(c) Final judgment of crimes involving moral turpitude; and

(d) Manipulation or rigging of the architecture licensure examination results,

disclosure of secret and confidential information in the examination
questions prior to the conduct of the said examination or tampering of
grades.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 10 of 20
==============

series of 2006, which was replicated in Section 2, Article VIII of

PRC Resolution No. 2013-775, series of 2013:

"Sec. 27. Motion for Reconsideration. - A party

aggrieved by a decision, order[,] or resolution may file
a motion for reconsideration thereof within fifteen
(15) days from receipt of the decision. Only one motion
for reconsideration shall be entertained. A second or
subsequent motion for reconsideration shall not be
acted upon by the Commission or the Board and shall
be considered a mere scrap of paper.

x x x

No motion for reconsideration shall be

entertained unless it be for any of the following
causes:

(a) Fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable

negligence which ordinary prudence could not
have guarded against and by reason of which
the aggrieved party has probably been impaired
of his rights;
(b) Newly discovered evidence which he could
not, without reasonable diligence, have
discovered and produced at the hearing, and
which[,] if presented[,] would probably alter the
result;
(c) Imposition of excessive penalty, or
insufficiency of the evidence to justify the
decision, or that the decision is against the law or
not in accordance with the facts presented."
(Emphasis and underscoring Ours)

We find that none of the grounds to reconsider the order of

default are availing in the instant case.

Petitioner narrates that the summons was received by his

house helper, who then gave the document to a construction
worker when the latter promised to hand it over to petitioner.
Unfortunately, petitioner was not able to receive the summons
 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 11 of 20
==============

from the construction worker, as the former no longer reported to

the job site.31

It should be noted, however, that petitioner later admitted

that he was informed by his house helper of an envelope that
arrived for him. Thinking that the envelope was merely an
ordinary parcel, he merely brushed this off and did not inquire
about its whereabouts any further.32

His admission of being informed by his house helper of an

envelope addressed to him is fatal to his claim of excusable
negligence. Ordinary diligence dictates that a professional, such
as petitioner herein, should have, at the very least, inquired as to
the parcel and its contents. Instead, petitioner automatically
assumed that its contents were inconsequential, and did not even
bother to inspect the same.

In the case of Philippine Air Lines, Inc. vs. Hon. Arca, 33 the
Supreme Court refused to give credence to the litigant's attempts
to shift the blame to his clerk, viz:

"x x x The excuse offered by

respondent Santos as reason for his failure to perfect
in due time his appeal from the judgment of the
Municipal Court, that the counsel's clerk forgot to
hand him the court notice, is the most hackneyed and
habitual subterfuge employed by litigants who fail to
observe the procedural requirements prescribed by
the Rules of Court. The uncritical acceptance of this
kind of commonplace excuses, in the face of the
Supreme Court's repeated rulings that they are
neither credible nor constitutive of excusable
negligence[,] is certainly such whimsical exercise of
judgment as to be grave abuse of discretion"
(Citations omitted; emphasis Ours)

31See supra note 9 at pp. 205-206.

32Id. at p. 206.
33 G.R. No. L-22729, 9 February 1967.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 12 of 20
==============

Similar to the respondent in the above case, the petitioner

herein also seems to completely wash his hands and, instead,
attempts to shift the blame to his house helper in justifying his
failure to file an answer within the prescribed time. For this
reason, We cannot consider petitioner’s failure to file his answer
as excusable.

Furthermore, petitioner failed to provide substantial

evidence in order to prove his assertions in his Motion for
Reconsideration.

It is well-settled that only substantial evidence is required in

administrative proceedings,34 such as the case at bar.
Unfortunately, petitioner failed to substantiate his version of the
events through the affidavit of either the house helper who
allegedly received the summons on his behalf, or the construction
worker who purportedly promised to deliver the same to him at
the job site. As it stands, his bare assertions that these events
transpired hardly pass the muster of substantial evidence.

All told, the BOA did not err in refusing to overturn his
order of default.

Petitioner is guilty of unethical

conduct

In the resolution of this case, this Court refrains from

discussing the ownership of Lots 9 and 10, as well as the
structures erected thereon, since Our jurisdiction is limited only to
the determination of whether petitioner violated the Code of
Ethical Conduct of Registered Architects (“Code of Ethical
Conduct").35
34 See Civil Service Commission vs. Bernabet A. Maala, G.R. No. 165253, 18 August 2005,
citing Civil Service Commission vs. Cayobit, G.R. No. 145737, 3 September 2003.
35 Resolution No. 02, series of 2006 of the Philippine Regulatory Board of Architecture,

“Adoption and Promulgation of the Code of Ethical Conduct for Registered and Licensed
Architects and For Holders of Temporary/Special Permits Under R.A. No. 9266, Known As
 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 13 of 20
==============

Upon a close scrutiny of the records and the arguments of

the parties, We concur with the PRC’s findings that petitioner is
guilty of unethical conduct.

In particular, petitioner reneged on his vow under Section

3.3, Article II of the Code of Ethical Conduct, which requires
architects to strictly observe the laws and regulations of the
government, to wit:

“Section 3. Relations with the Public. - The Architect is

engaged in a profession which carries with it civic
responsibilities towards the public, whether such
responsibilities are the natural outcome of good
citizenship or of his/her professional pursuit, or
whether they partake of informative and educational
matters or of his/her normal interest in public welfare;
and, accordingly, he or she
x x x
3.3 as a good citizen[,] shall abide by and observe the
laws and regulations of the government and comply
with the Code of Ethical Conduct and the Standards of
Professional Practice. He/she shall at all times
endeavor to properly observe the laws on the practice
of architecture and on the planning and design of
buildings and their environs. He/she shall at no time
act in a manner detrimental to the best interest of the
architectural profession.
x x x”
(Emphasis Ours)

First, petitioner caused the demolition of the carport without

the necessary permit, as required by the National Building Code.

Section 301 of the National Building Code provides that a

permit must first be secured before any demolition may proceed,
viz:

“SECTION 301. Building Permits

‘The Architecture Act of 2004’”.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 14 of 20
==============

No person, firm[,] or corporation, including any

agency or instrumentality of the government[,] shall
erect, construct, alter, repair, move, convert[,] or
demolish any building or structure or cause the same
to be done without first obtaining a building permit
therefor from the Building Official assigned in the place
where the subject building is located or the building
work is to be done.” (Emphasis Ours)

In hopes of his absolution, petitioner contends that it was

Eloisa, the “true owner” of the carport, who caused the
demolition of the said structure, and that he had no hand in the
same.36 However, petitioner failed to provide Us with substantial
evidence that would support his averments, such as, an affidavit
from Eloisa to this effect. As such, We cannot simply take his
statements at face value.

In contrast, respondent presented the testimony of

Elizabeth, who personally saw petitioner and the construction
workers under his employ facilitate the demolition of the
carport.37 It should also be noted that petitioner utterly failed to
destroy Elizabeth’s credibility as witness, or even rebut her
testimony by substantial evidence. Hence, the testimony of
Elizabeth, as summarized38 by the BOA’s Decision, sufficiently
establishes petitioner’s participation in the destruction of the
carport sans any demolition permit.

Second, petitioner does not deny that, by initially failing to

include the ancestral house, he submitted an inaccurate sketch
plan. Instead, he interposes the defense of good faith and claimed
that he subsequently rectified this error. He further asserts that, in
any case, respondent was not prejudiced by the sketch plan, prior
to its correction.39
36 See supra note 1 at pp. 33-35, 38.
37 See supra note 13 at pp. 93, 95.
38 See id.
39 See supra note 1 at pp. 36-38.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 15 of 20
==============

We are unimpressed.

Section 2,40 Article I of the Code of Ethical Conduct

recognizes that the profession of architecture carries with it grave
responsibilities to the public. Indeed, petitioner should take this
statement to heart, considering the dire consequences that a single
mistake or an erroneous information may have in his field of
work. For this reason, We cannot simply sweep under the rug the
omission of petitioner to include the ancestral house in the sketch
plan that he submitted. We also find that petitioner’s defense that
the respondent was not prejudiced or harmed by the inaccurate
information is flimsy at best.

Moreover, Engr. Reston even stated that petitioner’s failure

to include the ancestral house in the sketch plan was tantamount
to misrepresentation and would have resulted in the revocation of
the locational clearance, viz:

“Q Engr Reston[,] when somebody applies for a

locational clearance with your office[,] it is a must that
the applicant submit an accurate plan?

A Yes, sir.

Q So when the lot where a proposed building is to

be constructed [and] there is an existing building[,] that
existing building on the plan submitted to your office
for evaluation must be shown?

A It depends but if it is to be demolished it will not

be shown but if it will be retained it must be shown.

40 Section 2. Duties and Responsibilities. - The Architect's honesty of purpose must be beyond
reproach; he/she acts as professional adviser to his/her Client and his/her advice must be
unprejudiced; he/she is charged with the exercise of mediation and conciliation functions
between Client and Contractor and must act with entire impartiality; he/she has moral
responsibilities to his/her professional associates and subordinates; and he/she is engaged
in a profession which carries with it grave responsibilities to the public. These duties and
responsibilities cannot be properly discharged unless his/her motives, conduct, sense of
moral values, sensitivity, and ability are such as to command respect and confidence.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 16 of 20
==============

Q In other words, whatever is the existing building

at the time the application for locational clearance is
filed must be shown on the plan so that you can
evaluate the proper distances?

A Yes, if that building is still exist (sic) after the

construction of a new building[,] it must be shown in
the plan.

Q In this case, you agree with me that the plans

submitted by Architect Nacorda in connection with
the subject proposed building did not show the
existence of this ancestral house?

A The first sets of plans that were submitted[,]

there was no showing of an existing building.

Q That non-showing of the existing building on

the same lot w[h]ere the proposed building is to be
constructed is what is known as misrepresentation or
concealment?

A Yes, when that building will exist after the

construction of the building.

Q And in fact, in your letter to defendant Eloisa

Rodriguez dated May 22, 2007 marked as Exhibit “5”[,]
you emphasized that there was concealment in this
building plans and you emphasized that this non-
disclosure is a kind of misrepresentation which is
sufficient cause for the revocation of the clearance of
the applicant?

A Yes, sir

Q You confirm that?

A Yes, sir.

Q And you also stated in this Exhibit “5” that

because of the non-disclosure of the existing
improvement on Lot 10 where the proposed building
was to be constructed there was[,] or to use your words
and I quote: “we have missed the evaluation of
distances between buildings”[.] [W]hat do you mean by
missing the evaluation of distances between
buildings?
 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 17 of 20
==============

A When the existing building will exist after the

construction[,] we have to evaluate the exact location
between the existing buildings up to the new
building.

Q And because of that non-disclosure[,] you have

misevaluation of distances?

A Yes, sir.”41 (Emphasis Ours)

These statements of Engr. Reston during his testimony only

confirms that petitioner did not commit an innocent omission. It
was a misrepresentation made to the various government
agencies, and which even resulted into the misevaluation of
distances.

Finally, petitioner likewise circumvented the Code of Ethical

Conduct by continuing with the construction, despite receipt of
the Building Suspension Order42 from the Office of the Building
Official of Cebu City.

In his defense, petitioner averred that his counsel was

informed by a certain “Engr. Antonio B. Sanchez” that the
suspension order would only be implemented after receipt of the
third notice. Thus, since what was received was merely the first
notice, petitioner concluded that he was not proscribed from
continuing with the construction of the building.43

Similar to all his other allegations, petitioner wants us to

believe in his assertions hook, line, and sinker, without even
providing any other document or affidavit in order to support his
claims.

41 TSN of Engr. Joel Reston dated 30 August 2007, Rollo, pp. 276-278.
42 Building Suspension Order dated 26 January 2007, Rollo, p. 508.
43 See supra note 1 at p. 40.
 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 18 of 20
==============

Furthermore, a plain reading of the Building Suspension

Order44 clearly shows that the construction was to be immediately
stopped upon its receipt:

“As per recommendation of the Chief,

Enforcement Division, Office of the Building Official,
and in connection with P.D. 1096, otherwise known as
the National Building Code of the Philippines, you are
hereby advised to stop or suspend immediately upon
receipt hereof the work on the construction of your
building x x x for reasons marked (x) below:

( ) No Building Permit
( ) Deviation from the approved _______ plans
( ) Misrepresentation of _________ plans
( x ) Misrepresentation of supporting documents

x x x

Failure to comply herewith within 3 days after

receipt hereof will force this Office to indorse this
matter to the City Fiscal for court action.
x x x” (Emphasis Ours)

Considering the straightforward nature of the order, and the

fact that there was no mention that it would be effective only after
the third notice, this Court struggles to understand why petitioner
sought for another interpretation of the Building Suspension
Order.

In view of the above violations committed by petitioner, We

find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of both the BOC and
the PRC finding him guilty of unethical conduct.

The penalty imposed by the BOD

upon petitioner is proper

44 Supra note 40.

 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 19 of 20
==============

Section 23 of R.A. No. 9266 grants the BOA the power to

impose sanctions upon a registered architect found to have
committed any of the grounds mentioned therein, to wit:

“SECTION 23. Suspension and Revocation of

Certificates of Registration, Professional Identification
Card or the Special/Temporary Permit. - The Board
shall have the power, upon notice and hearing, to
suspend or revoke the validity of a Certificate of
Registration/Professional Identification Card, or shall
cancel a special permit granted under this Act to an
architect, on any ground mentioned under Section 22
hereof for the use of or perpetuation of any fraud or
deceit in obtaining a Certificate of Registration and
Professional Identification Card or special/temporary
or dishonorable conduct; or for any cause specified
hereunder: Provided, however, That such action of the
Board shall be subject to appeal to the Commission
whose decision shall be final if he/she:

x x x

(f) has violated any provision of this Act, its

implementing rules and regulations, the Code of
Ethical Conduct and Standards of Professional
Practice.”
(Emphasis Ours)

In the exercise of this power, the BOD imposed upon

petitioner the penalty of suspension for one (1) year from the
practice of architecture.45

This Court concurs with the BOD that a suspension of one

(1) year from the practice of architecture is an appropriate penalty
for petitioner. Petitioner committed several violations of the Code
of Ethical Conduct in his dealings with respondent and the
various government agencies. With the imposition of this penalty,
this Court expects that petitioner would be more mindful of his
responsibilities and duties as an architect, and strictly follow the

45 See supra note 16.

 CA-G.R. SP No. 161336
Decision
Page 20 of 20
==============

laws and regulations of the Philippines in the practice of his

profession.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision

dated 2 May 2019 rendered by the Professional Regulation
Commission ("PRC") in Appeal Case No. A-366 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
ALFREDO D. AMPUAN
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ORIGINAL SIGNED
PEDRO B. CORALES
Associate Justice

ORIGINAL SIGNED
RAYMOND REYNOLD R. LAUIGAN
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the

Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in
the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

ORIGINAL SIGNED
PEDRO B. CORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Sixteenth Division