Student No.
: 4210629 & 4210634
Understanding and Applying Rule 4 of RA 9266 IRR: A Case Study Analysis
Case Study Analysis:
Research and analyze a real-life case or scenario where Rule 4 of RA 9266 IRR was applied or could
have been applied. Discuss how the sundry provisions in Rule 4 were relevant to the case and their impact
on the practice of architecture.
Case Title and Description:
TITLE: Estafa charges filed vs fake architect By Sandy Araneta (Philstar.com) - February 14, 2010
DESCRIPTION: MANILA, Philippines - The National Bureau of Investigation filed recently estafa charges
before the Pasay City Prosecutor’s Office against a fake architect who collected almost P1 million for the
renovation of a seafood restaurant along Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard in Pasay City but failed to do the
job.
I. Case Overview:
In the recent case filed by the National Bureau of Investigation, Elmer Coquia, the owner of E. Coquia Design
Services, faces estafa charges for allegedly collecting nearly P1 million from Josephine Mojica Tan, owner
of Aling Mahsya Seafood Restaurant. Coquia, posing as a fake architect, failed to execute the promised
renovation work, despite receiving payments totaling P807,500 in three installments. Investigations revealed
that Coquia wasn't a licensed architect, leading to the charges. This case highlights the importance of
verifying professional credentials in the field of architecture to avoid fraudulent activities.
II. Relevant Facts:
Elmer Coquia, owner of E. Coquia Design Services, faces estafa charges for allegedly collecting nearly P1
million from Josephine Mojica Tan, owner of Aling Mahsya Seafood Restaurant in Pasay City, for a renovation
project that he failed to complete. Coquia, not a licensed architect according to the Professional Regulations
Commission, received multiple payments but did not initiate the renovation by the agreed deadlines. Tan
discovered his lack of credentials and demanded a refund, leading to the National Bureau of Investigation
filing charges against Coquia before the Pasay City Prosecutor’s Office. Coquia denies the allegations.
III. Rule 4 Provisions:
These provisions are crucial for upholding the professional standards and integrity of architects, ensuring
that only qualified individuals engage in architectural practice. In this case, Coquia's actions might be in
violation of these provisions, leading to the filing of estafa charges.
1. Section 31: Liability of Representatives of Non-Registered Persons
- In this case, Elmer Coquia, the accused, claimed to be an architect and operated under the
business name E. Coquia Design Services. However, investigations revealed that he was not
listed in the database of licensed architects in the Philippines maintained by the Professional
Regulations Commission (PRC). Section 31 of RA 9266 IRR states that any person who uses a
name, title, or description implying that he is a registered and licensed architect when, in fact, he
is not, shall be liable. Coquia's misrepresentation of being a licensed architect is a clear violation
of this provision.
2. Section 32: This section outlines the proper use of an architect's seal and signature.
- If Coquia presented himself as an architect without being registered, he likely violated this
provision. the situation involves potential violations of Section 32 of RA 9266 IRR, emphasizing
the importance of hiring licensed professionals for architectural services to ensure the legality
and quality of construction projects.
3. Section 34: Non-Registered Person shall not Claim Equivalent Service
- Under Rule 4 (Sundry Provisions) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic
Act 9266, specifically Section 34, it states that non-registered persons shall not claim equivalent
service to that of registered and licensed architects. In the case of Elmer Coquia, he is identified
as a fake architect who, according to investigations, was not found in the Professional
Regulations Commission (PRC) database of licensed architects in the Philippines.
The provisions from RA 9266 IRR, particularly Section 34, aim to protect the public by ensuring
that only duly registered and qualified individuals provide architectural services. In this situation,
Coquia, being a non-registered person, allegedly claimed to offer architectural services for the
renovation of the seafood restaurant, leading to the filing of estafa charges as he failed to deliver
the promised service.
IV. Legal and Regulatory Compliance:
VIOLATION:
• Impersonation – Elmer posed as a licensed architect without possessing valid registrations.
• Fraud and deceit- Deceiving clients by collecting money for services and failing to deliver constitutes
fraud and unethical conduct.
• Negligence and breach of trust- Abandoning a project after receiving payment implies negligence
and could be considered a breach of trust.
CLIENT:
• Possible Lack of Due Diligence, failing to verify the architect's license before entering into a contract
might contribute to the situation.
• They were able to report suspected impersonation and unethical conduct to the PRBOA/PRC
AUTHORITIES (NBI, PRC/PRBOA):
• They were able to investigate complaints, enforce regulations, and take appropriate disciplinary
action against violators.
V. Impact on the Profession:
Loss of Public Trust: Impersonating Architects and defrauding clients can erode public trust in the entire
profession. Clients may become hesitant to hire architects due to concerns about legitimacy and competence.
Damages Reputation: Negative publicity can damage the reputation of the architecture profession as a
whole. It reinforces negative stereotypes about unethical practices and undermines the dedication and
integrity of legitimate architects.
Loss of Potential Clients: If clients lose trust in architects due to impersonation incidents, it can lead to a
decrease in demand for their services, impacting their livelihood and the profession's overall economic well-
being.
Increased Regulation: Repeated incidents of impersonation might lead to calls for stricter regulations and
oversight within the profession. While this can potentially prevent future occurrences, it can also add
unnecessary burdens and complexities for ethical architects.
VI. Lessons Learned:
➢ This case emphasizes the crucial role of verifying professional licenses before engaging with any
service provider, especially in our where trust and expertise are vital. It reinforces the importance of
checking an architect's registration with the PRBOA/PRC to ensure they are legitimately qualified
and accountable.
➢ These cases can raise public awareness about the importance of verifying an architect's license
before entering into any contract. This can empower clients to make informed decisions and protect
themselves from potential fraud.
➢ The negative consequences of impersonation can serve as a reminder to ethical architects of the
importance of upholding their professional responsibilities and maintaining high ethical standards.
➢ People should be able to consider first what will the consequences be, before conducting unethical
action
VII. References:
Estafa charges filed vs fake architect. (1970, January 1). Philstar.com.
https://www.philstar.com/metro/2010/02/14/549088/estafa-charges-filed-vs-fake-architect/amp/
PressReader.com - digital newspaper & magazine subscriptions. (n.d.). PressReader.
https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/sunstar-davao/20140503/281578058672593
