epu ng minas KAGAWARAN NC 1CATARUNGAN

Department of Justice

1 apila.

IFA •

L tc?__ September 30, 1996

Commissioner Hermogenes P. Pobre Professional Regulation Commission P. Paredes St., corner Morayta St. Sampaloc, Manila

S ir:

This refers to your request for opinion on who between a Master Plumber and a Sanitary Engineer has the right to practice plumbing in buildings and similar construction.

You state that the instant request has been spawned by a claim of master plumbers that the "extent or scope of the practice of plumbing by duly licensed Master Plumbers" has been diminished or limited "to only twenty (20) -unit's of plumbing installations in violation. of Section 2(a) of R.A. No. 1378 known as the 'Plumbing Law"- on the basis of Item No. 3.2.2.2. of• Rule I of NBC Memorandum Order NO. 77-1 (Imillementing Rules and Regulations of the National 'Building Code), issued by

'the then Ministry of Public Works,

Transportation and Communications (now Department of Public Works and Highways) on June 16, 1977, which authorized duly licensed Sanitary Engineers "to sign and seal plumbing plans and specifications for more than twenty (20) units of new as well as alteration of and/or additional plumbing installations, water supply, storm drainage, water purification and sewage treatment plant (Item No. 3.2.2.2.[a] and [b])"; and that master plumbers likewise claim that the aforesaid provisions of Item 3.2.2.2. (a), (b) and (c) of Rule I of NBC Memorandum No. 77-1 "had infringed upon Section 33 of R.A. 1364 known as the 'Sanitary Engineering Law'" for the reason that said provisions "violated the injunction against an interpretation of the said law that will diminish the field of ,practice of duly licensed Master Plumbers provided under Sec. 2(a) of R.A. No. 1378" whiCh reads:

-Sec. 2. (a) The practice of plumbing within the meaning and intent of this Act shall embrace services in the form of consultations, designing, preparation of plans, specifications, estimates, erection; installation and supervision of plumbing work including the inspection and-acceptance of materials used therein; extension and alteration of all pipings to fixtures, appliances, and appurtenances in connection with any of the following: storm and sanitary drainage, facilities of buildings, the sanitary venting of fixtures, hot or cold water supply systems within or adjacent to any building, =storm-

,m1* 01.

cram NO:222C_ISilo

drains, sewerage system of any premises and/or in connection with any public disposal or any acceptable terminal_ The enumeration in this paragraph shall not be construed as excluding any other work requiring plumbing knowledge and

application".

Relative to the aforecited claims of master plumbers, you further state that you do not find any provision in the

' National Building Code "from which the MPWTC could reasonably infer its power to diminish the scope of the practice of plumbing by duly licensed Master Plumbers" ; and that even assuming that there is such a provision,

otLut: believe, following the settled rule in

construction, that the provisions.of R_A. No. 1578 ;Should prevail over the provisions of the National. Building Code, for the reason that the former is a special law while the latter is a general law.

This Office regrets that it has to decline rendition of opinion on your aforesaid. request. As noted above, the said request involves NBC Memorandum Order No. 77"1 (Implementing Rules and Regulations of the National Building Code), issued by the then Ministry of Public Works, - Transportation and Communications (now Department of Public Works and Highways) and thus any opinion or official view that this Office may express on your request would be tantamount to a review of the position or actuations of the said department on the matter. The Secretary of Justice has invariably declined to render opinion on matters which fall within the primary jurisdiction of another department or office, in this case, the DPWH, over which he has no revisory authority, unless the request comes from such agency office itself (Secretary of

Justice - Opus. No. 70, s. 1995; No_ 97, s_ 1987; No. 123, .s. 1980; Nos. 67 and 169, s. 1979; and No_ 94, s_ 197Q).

It is suggested, therefore, that the aforesaid query be addressed instead to the Secretary, Department of Public' Works and Highways (DPWH), who is in a better position to clarify and/or resolve or help in the resolution of the issue

presented.

Very truly yours,

TEO 1ST T. GU GO A, JR. Secretary

31.8

Republika ng Pilipinas ICAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN

Department of Justice

fi9INTON NO. g? September 21,

Hon. FLORANTE SORIQUEZ Acting Secretary Department of Public Works & Highways .Bonifacio Drive, Port Area, Manila

Is, 20e.g..

2004

Sir:

This is with reference to your request for opinion on a clear interpretation of the provisions Of the Sanitary Engineering Law (R. A. No. 1364) and the Plumbing Law (R. A. : No. 1378) vis-a-vis the provisions of the National Building Code of the Philippines (P. D. No. 1096) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)1

The request, it appears, is made so as "to determine the realM .of practice of both professions in order to avoid conflict in the enforcement" of P.D. No. 1096, particularly Section 302 (Application for [Building] Permits) thereof, and the Decree's Revised IRR which, you say, proposes that "only master plumber can sign plumbing documents and only sanitary engineer can sign sanitary documents."

In this connection, you likewise want our interpretation of Memorandum Circular No. 2003-13 of the PRC (Professional Regulation Commission) Board of Sanitary Engineering which, you also claim, appears to be contradictory to the 'scope of work of master plumbers as defined under Section 2 of R. A. No. 1378.

You state that the sanitary engineers oppose the proposed rule under Rule III of the proposed revised IRR of P. D. No. 1096 claiming that plumbing design is part of the scope of professional practice Of sanitary engineers; that sanitary engineers likewise seek to partake in

3 5 9

DPINION NO. e? is;- 2004

signing plumbing documents and to limit the practice of registered and licensed plumbers to signing and sealing plumbing documents for plumbing installations not exceeding 20 units pursuant to Section 3.2.2.2 of the present IRR of P. D. No. 1096; and that the master plumbers strongly oppose Lite proposilion of sanitary engineers claiming that it deprives master plumbers of the-area of discipline already vested by R. A. No. 1378 and encroaches upon their scope of professional practice sanctioned by R. A. No. 1378, in relation to the Revised National Plumbing Code of the Philippines.

With much regret, this Department is constrained not to render the requested opinion.

Pursuant to settled policy and precedents, the Secretary of Justice does not rule on issues which fall within the primary jurisdiction of another office •or agency over whose rulings or actuations this Department exercises no revisory authority (Sec. of Justice Ops. No. 47 & 159, s. 1993). This time-honored policy is dictated not only by practical considerations but by a sincere respects for the expertise on, and familiarity with, the policies relating to the subject and the rightful exercise of jurisdiction as conferred by law upon a co-equal and .coordinate government office (Id., No. 15,s. 2003).

As prbyided in Section 4 of R. A. No. 1378, the - interpretation and administration of its provisions properly fall within the jurisdiction of the PRC Board for Master Plumbers. On the other hand, the interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of R. A. No. 1364 fall within the jurisdiction of the PRC Board for Sanitary Engineers as provided under Sec. 4 of R. A. No. 1364.

For the same reason, this Department is unable to provide an interpretation of Memorandum Circular No. 2003-13 of the PRC Board of Sanitary

2

360

DPINION NO. e? tST, 202g. .

Engineering as the power to "review, revise and approve resolutions. embodying I policies promulgated by the various PRC Boards in the exercise of their powers and functions or in implementing the laws regulating their respective professions" properly pertains to the Professional Regulation 'Commission as provided under Seq. 7(c) of R. A. No.8981, otherwise known as the "PRC Modernization Act of 2000.

Moreover, in whatever way thiS Department resolves the issues raised herein, our opinion thereon, which is merely advisory in nature (Id., Nos. 36, 8 and 7, current series) cannbt have binding effect • upon the parties who may be affected thereby, i.e., the sanitary engineers and the master plumbers—not to mention their respective organizations, and who may, in all probability, elevate the matters before the cdurts. In consonance with long established precedents, the Secretary of Justice does not pass upon issues which are judicial in nature or which can be the subject of judicial litigations (Id., Nos. 84, 56 and 51, current series). Accordingly, we also have to decline the requested opinion.

Very truly yours,

114144)11612frar Acting Secretary

3

361

OPINION NO. 168, s. 1979

2nd Indorsement November 28, 1979

Respectfully returned to the Chairman, Roard of Licensure for Master Plumbers, Manila, his within request for comment on the letter of the President of the National Master Plumbers Association of the Philippines (NAMPAP), questioning the validity of the rule issued by the Minister of Public Works, Transportation and Communications (MPWTCi now the Minister of Public Works) in implementation of the Building Code (P. D. No. 1096), limiting the practice of Master Plumbers to plumbing installation " up to twenty (20) water closets ", and allowing Sanitary Engineers to take up the practice above such limitation.

Please be adviced that we are constrained to refrain from giving our official comment or opinion on the matter for the following reasons:

Under section 83 of the Revised Administrative Code, the Minister of Justice, as Attorney General, renders opinion or gives legal advice only for and upon the request of the national government functionaries mentioned therein, among them the heads of the executive ministries and the chiefs of bureaus and offices of equivalent rank.

To express our comments on the matter would be to review or pass upon subject ruling of the Minister of Public Works, who is the head of a co-equal and coordinate Ministry in the executive branch. The Minister of Justice does not possess such revisory authority. (Opinions, Sec-retary of Justice, No. 40, s. 1975: Nos. 39 8.205, s. 1957: Nos. 151, 165 & 239, s. 1956, among others)

It would be a different matter if the Minister of Public Works would himself solicit our legal advice on

OPINION NO. 168, s. 1979

prt

OPINION NO. 168, s. 1979

the question, in which case we may render opinion thereon pursuant to section 83 of the Revised Administrative Codc, supra. Hence, the proper recourse of that Board would be to take up the matter with the Minister of Publics Works who may, if he so desires, seek the opinion thereon of the Minister of Justice.

(SGD. ) RICARLO C. PUNO Minister of Justice

ASOILLF:lmc cfy:lmv

bi

OPINION NO. 168, s. 1979