R. B. Ranjo v. Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists (Majority Opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Renato B. Ranjo, Petitioner v. Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists, Respondent BEFORE: : : : : : : : : No. 1744 C.D. 2007 Submitted: January 18, 2008 HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge HONORABLE JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE McCLOSKEY FILED: February 15, 2008 Renato B. Ranjo (Petitioner) petitions pro se for review of a final order of the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists (the Board), denying Petitioner s appeal of the provisional denial of his application for licensure by reciprocity as a professional engineer. We now affirm. Since 1992, Petitioner has been licensed as a professional engineer in the Republic of the Philippines. On March 1, 2007, Petitioner filed with the Board an application for licensure as a professional engineer under the Engineer, Land Surveyor and Geologist Registration Law (the Law).1 Under Section 4(b)(1) of the Law, 63 P.S. §151(b)(1), the Board may license by reciprocity an engineer already licensed in another 1 Act of May 23, 1945, P.L. 913, as amended, 63 P.S. §§148-158.2. jurisdiction if certain conditions are met, including a requirement that the other jurisdiction will similarly license by reciprocity a professional engineer licensed in Pennsylvania.2 By letter dated February 9, 2007, the Board notified Petitioner that it had provisionally denied his application because it did not appear that the Philippines would similarly license by reciprocity a professional engineer licensed in Pennsylvania. Petitioner then filed an appeal of this provisional denial with the Board. On May 16, 2007, the Board conducted a formal hearing with respect to Petitioner s appeal. Petitioner appeared at the hearing without counsel and testified on his own behalf. Petitioner testified as to the alleged reciprocity provisions of the Philippine law and submitted documents in support of the same.3 Petitioner was questioned extensively by counsel for the Board as well as the numerous Board members present at the hearing. Upon conclusion of this hearing, the Board proceeded to review the record and deliberated the matter at its meeting of July 24, 2007. On August 23, 2007, the Board issued its final adjudication and order denying Petitioner s appeal of the provisional denial of his application, thereby rendering said provisional denial final.4 In rendering its adjudication and order, the Board concluded that it was not authorized to grant Petitioner a license by reciprocity 2 This Section also provides that the requirements and qualifications to engage in the practice of engineering in the applicant s home jurisdiction must have been at the time of the initial issuance of such license or certificate of registration at least equal to the existing standards of this Commonwealth ¦. 63 P.S. §151(b)(1). 3 These documents included a resolution promulgated by the Philippines Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), which appears to be the equivalent of the Board in this Commonwealth, addressing the guidelines for the registration of foreign professionals allowed by law to practice the regulated profession in the Philippines. 4 The Board noted that its denial was without prejudice to Petitioner to apply again upon meeting the applicable requirements for licensure. 2 under Section 4(b)(1) of the Law, based upon his licensure in the Philippines, as the evidence of record failed to establish that the Philippines would similarly license or register professional engineers duly licensed by this Commonwealth. More specifically, the Board concluded that the documents submitted by Petitioner lacked any provision authorizing licensure by reciprocity. The Board noted that said documents appear to place additional examination and experience requirements on a foreigner prior to his/her licensure in the Philippines. Petitioner thereafter filed a petition for review with this Court. On appeal,5 Petitioner argues that the Board erred in denying his appeal as the Board misconstrued the provisions in the Philippine law which allegedly authorize licensure by reciprocity. We disagree. In support of his argument, Petitioner cites to Section 38 of Republic Act No. 7920 (New Electrical Engineering Law), titled as An Act Providing for a More Responsive and Comprehensive Regulation for the Practice, Licensing, and Registration of Electrical Engineers and Electricians and approved by the Philippine Congress on February 24, 1995. See Brief of Board, Appendix A, PRC Yearbook 2000, p. 264. Section 38 of the New Electrical Engineering Law, entitled Foreign Reciprocity, provides as follows: No foreign engineer shall be admitted to take a board examination, be given a certificate of registration, or be entitled to any of the rights and privileges under this Act unless the country of which he is a subject or citizen specifically permits Filipino engineers to practice within 5 Our scope of review of a decision by the Board is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, or necessary findings were not supported by substantial evidence. Curran v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, State Registration Board of Professional Engineers, 498 A.2d 51 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 516 Pa. 615, 531 A.2d 781 (1987). 3 its territorial limits on the same basis as the subjects or citizens of such country. Brief of Board, Appendix A, PRC Yearbook 2000, p. 273. Contrary to Petitioner s argument, we do not believe that this Section specifically authorizes licensure by reciprocity. Rather, as the Board explains in its brief to this Court, Section 38 appears to be an exception to other Sections of the New Electrical Engineering Law which require a licensee to be a citizen of the Philippines.6 In further support of his argument, Petitioner cites to Resolution No. 90-547 of the PRC, dated January 28, 1998, and entitled Guidelines for the Registration of Foreign Professionals Allowed by Laws to Practice the Regulated Profession in the Philippines. 7 See Brief of Board, Appendix B. Petitioner asserts that said Resolution fully resolves the issues of reciprocity and citizenship as set forth in the New Electrical Engineering Law. More specifically, Petitioner relies on Sec.3(A)(1) of this Resolution, which provides as follows: A. As provided by existing laws, the following are foreign nationals and/or professional [sic] who are allowed by the law to take professional license examination and/or to practice their professions in the Philippines: 1. Foreigners who are allowed to take professional licensure examinations and/or practice the regulated professions through reciprocity ¦. Id. 6 Sections 16 and 17 of the New Electrical Engineering Law require any person applying for registration as a professional electrical engineer or applying for admission to the registered electrical engineering examination be a citizen of the Philippines. Brief of Board, Appendix A, PRC Yearbook 2000, p. 268. 7 This Resolution was enacted by the PRC and is described as setting forth regulations for the industry. 4 Again, however, we do not believe that said Section of the Resolution specifically authorizes licensure by reciprocity. Rather, as the Board explains in its brief to this Court, Sec.3(A)(1) simply identifies that the provisions of the Resolution apply to those foreign professionals who are authorized by law to take the examination or practice the profession. Moreover, the Board cites to Sec.3(B)(1) of the Resolution which provides that the foreign professionals identified in Sec.3(A)(1) must show proof that they meet certain requirements before being permitted to practice their profession, including possession of a valid alien employee permit or residency in the Philippines for at least three years. We see no error on the part of the Board in interpreting the provisions discussed above. Based upon our review of these provisions, we cannot say that the Board erred in denying Petitioner s appeal and refusing to grant him a license under Section 4(b)(1) of the Law. Accordingly, the final order of the Board is affirmed. JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge 5 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Renato B. Ranjo, Petitioner v. Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists, Respondent : : : : : : : : No. 1744 C.D. 2007 ORDER AND NOW, this 15th day of February, 2008, the final order of the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists, denying the appeal of Renato B. Ranjo, is hereby affirmed. JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.