Article 2
Case: Unauthorized Use of Mechanical Engineering Title (Section 25):
Summary: An individual who is not a licensed mechanical engineer falsely represents themselves as such
by using the title "Licensed Mechanical Engineer" in their professional correspondence and marketing
materials.
Details: Despite lacking the necessary qualifications and licensure, the individual intentionally misleads
clients and employers into believing that they are a licensed mechanical engineer, in violation of Section
25 of the Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act.
Legal Action: The Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) or affected parties file a lawsuit against the
individual for unauthorized use of the mechanical engineering title under Section 25, seeking injunctions
and penalties for misrepresentation.
Case: Illegal Practice of Mechanical Engineering (Section 26):
Summary: A company hires individuals who do not hold valid licenses as mechanical engineers to
perform engineering design, analysis, and consultation services, in violation of Section 26 of the
Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: The company assigns unlicensed individuals to undertake projects requiring specialized
knowledge and expertise in mechanical engineering disciplines, such as HVAC system design or machine
component analysis.
Legal Action: The Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) or regulatory authorities file a lawsuit
against the company for engaging in the illegal practice of mechanical engineering under Section 26,
seeking penalties and corrective action to cease unauthorized activities.
Case: Impersonation of Licensed Mechanical Engineer (Section 27):
Summary: An individual falsely assumes the identity of a licensed mechanical engineer and provides
engineering services under the stolen identity, in violation of Section 27 of the Philippine Mechanical
Engineering Act.
Details: The individual obtains and uses the personal information, credentials, and professional license of
a legitimate mechanical engineer without their consent, deceiving clients and employers into believing
that they are dealing with the licensed engineer.
Legal Action: The affected licensed engineer or regulatory authorities file a lawsuit against the
impersonator for identity theft and impersonation under Section 27, seeking legal remedies and punitive
damages for fraudulent behavior.
Case: False Representation in Mechanical Engineering Documents (Section 28):
Summary: A mechanical engineering firm submits project documents, reports, or drawings containing
false or misleading information, in violation of Section 28 of the Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: The firm intentionally includes inaccurate data, fabricated test results, or deceptive
representations in engineering deliverables to conceal design flaws, performance deficiencies, or
regulatory violations.
Legal Action: Regulatory authorities, clients, or affected parties file a lawsuit against the engineering firm
for false representation in mechanical engineering documents under Section 28, seeking penalties,
corrective action, and compensation for damages resulting from reliance on misleading information.
Case: Unlicensed Practice of Mechanical Engineering (Article II, Section 26):
Summary: A construction firm hires individuals without valid licenses to perform mechanical engineering
tasks, violating Article II, Section 26 of the Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: The firm assigns unlicensed individuals to design and oversee the installation of mechanical
systems in a commercial building.
Legal Action: The Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) files a lawsuit against the construction firm
under Article II, Section 26, seeking penalties as stipulated in the act for engaging in the unlicensed
practice of mechanical engineering.
Case: Unauthorized Use of Mechanical Engineering Seal or Stamp (Section 8):
Summary: An individual or entity improperly uses a licensed mechanical engineer's seal or stamp on
engineering documents without their authorization, violating Section 8 of the Philippine Mechanical
Engineering Act.
Details: The individual or entity affixes the engineer's seal or stamp to engineering plans, reports, or
drawings without the engineer's knowledge or consent, falsely implying their involvement or approval.
Legal Action: The licensed engineer files a lawsuit against the individual or entity for unauthorized use of
their seal or stamp under Section 8, seeking injunctions, damages, and legal remedies for
misrepresentation and infringement of professional authority.
Case: Violation of Professional Code of Ethics (Section 9):
Summary: A licensed mechanical engineer engages in conduct that breaches the professional code of
ethics outlined in Section 9 of the Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: The engineer accepts bribes, engages in fraudulent practices, or compromises safety standards,
disregarding their duty to uphold the integrity and reputation of the mechanical engineering profession.
Legal Action: The Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) or affected parties file a lawsuit against the
engineer for violations of the professional code of ethics under Section 9, seeking disciplinary action,
fines, and sanctions to deter unethical behavior.
Case: Failure to Report Ethical Violations (Section 10):
Summary: A licensed mechanical engineer becomes aware of ethical misconduct by a colleague but fails
to report the violations to the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), contravening Section 10 of the
Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: Despite witnessing ethical breaches such as plagiarism, fraud, or negligence, the engineer
chooses not to disclose the information to the PRC or regulatory authorities as required by law.
Legal Action: The PRC or affected parties file a lawsuit against the engineer for failure to report ethical
violations under Section 10, seeking disciplinary action, fines, and sanctions for non-compliance with
reporting obligations.
Case: Violation of Confidentiality Obligations (Section 11):
Summary: A licensed mechanical engineer breaches confidentiality obligations by disclosing proprietary
or sensitive information obtained during professional engagements, violating Section 11 of the Philippine
Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: The engineer shares confidential client data, trade secrets, or design specifications with
unauthorized parties, compromising the privacy, security, or competitive advantage of clients or
employers.
Legal Action: The affected clients or employers file a lawsuit against the engineer for violation of
confidentiality obligations under Section 11, seeking legal remedies, damages, and injunctive relief to
protect confidential information.
Art 3 and 4
Case: Non-Compliance with Safety Standards (Section 30):
Summary: A mechanical engineering firm designs and installs ventilation systems in industrial facilities
without adhering to safety standards mandated by Section 30 of the Philippine Mechanical Engineering
Act.
Details: The firm neglects to incorporate appropriate safety features or fails to conduct necessary risk
assessments, resulting in ventilation systems that do not adequately protect workers from hazardous
fumes or contaminants.
Legal Action: Employees or regulatory authorities file a lawsuit against the engineering firm for noncompliance with safety standards under Section 30, seeking penalties, corrective actions, and
compensation for health and safety violations.
Case: Failure to Obtain Permit for Engineering Projects (Section 29):
Summary: A construction company undertakes mechanical engineering projects without obtaining the
requisite permits from regulatory authorities, in violation of Section 29 of the Philippine Mechanical
Engineering Act.
Details: The company proceeds with the installation of mechanical systems in buildings without securing
permits from local government agencies or the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), bypassing the
regulatory process.
Legal Action: Regulatory authorities file a lawsuit against the construction company for failure to obtain
permits under Section 29, seeking penalties, cessation of work, and corrective measures to ensure
compliance with regulatory requirements.
Case: Plagiarism in Engineering Reports (Section 32):
Summary: A mechanical engineering consultancy firm submits project reports containing plagiarized
content, violating Section 32 of the Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: The firm copies sections of technical reports or design documents from online sources or
previous projects without proper attribution or acknowledgment of the original authors, presenting the
plagiarized work as their own.
Legal Action: Competitors or affected parties file a lawsuit against the consultancy firm for plagiarism in
engineering reports under Section 32, seeking damages, injunctions, and disciplinary action to uphold
academic integrity and professional standards.
Case: Violation of Environmental Regulations (Section 31):
Summary: A manufacturing company designs and operates mechanical systems that contribute to
environmental pollution, contravening Section 31 of the Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: The company's manufacturing processes or equipment release pollutants or emissions beyond
permissible limits, causing environmental degradation and posing risks to public health and ecosystems.
Legal Action: Environmental advocacy groups or regulatory agencies file a lawsuit against the
manufacturing company for violations of environmental regulations under Section 31, seeking penalties,
remediation measures, and injunctions to mitigate environmental harm.
Case: Professional Negligence in Engineering Design (Article III, Section 31):
Summary: A licensed mechanical engineer designs a ventilation system for a manufacturing facility,
which fails to meet safety standards and results in employee health hazards.
Details: Investigations reveal that the engineer failed to comply with the standards set forth in Article III,
Section 31 of the Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act, leading to design flaws and safety risks.
Legal Action: The affected employees file a lawsuit against the mechanical engineer, citing violations of
Article III, Section 31, and seeking compensation for damages caused by professional negligence.
Case: Misrepresentation of Engineering Credentials (Article IV, Section 35):
Summary: An individual falsely claims to be a licensed mechanical engineer in their job application and
subsequent professional dealings, violating Article IV, Section 35 of the Philippine Mechanical
Engineering Act.
Details: The individual provides fabricated credentials and falsely represents themselves as a licensed
engineer to secure employment opportunities.
Legal Action: The employer discovers the misrepresentation and files a lawsuit against the individual for
fraud and violation of Article IV, Section 35 of the Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act, seeking
damages for deceit and breach of trust.
Case: Ethical Violations by a Licensed Engineer (Article V, Section 40):
Summary: A licensed mechanical engineer is accused of accepting bribes from contractors in exchange
for preferential treatment in project approvals, contravening Article V, Section 40 of the Philippine
Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: Complaints are lodged against the engineer with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC)
for unethical conduct and violations of professional ethics.
Legal Action: The PRC initiates disciplinary proceedings against the engineer under Article V, Section 40,
which may result in the suspension or revocation of their professional license, depending on the
outcome of the investigation.
Case: Failure to Renew Professional License (Article IV, Section 37):
Summary: A mechanical engineer fails to renew their professional license within the prescribed period,
violating Article IV, Section 37 of the Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: Despite receiving multiple renewal notices from the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC),
the engineer neglects to complete the renewal process on time.
Legal Action: The PRC initiates legal proceedings against the engineer for failure to renew their
professional license as mandated by Article IV, Section 37, seeking penalties and administrative
sanctions.
Case: Plagiarism in Engineering Reports (Article III, Section 32):
Summary: A mechanical engineering firm is accused of plagiarism after submitting project reports copied
from existing documents without proper attribution, violating Article III, Section 32 of the Philippine
Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: Investigations reveal that the firm's engineers copied sections of technical reports from online
sources and previous projects without permission or acknowledgment.
Legal Action: The affected parties file a lawsuit against the engineering firm for intellectual property
infringement and violations of Article III, Section 32, seeking damages and disciplinary action against the
responsible engineers.
Case: Violation of Safety Standards in Manufacturing (Article III, Section 30):
Summary: A manufacturing company is sued for negligence after a product defect in a mechanical device
leads to injuries, in violation of Article III, Section 30 of the Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: The product's design and manufacturing processes did not adhere to safety standards mandated
by the Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act, resulting in a malfunction that caused harm to consumers.
Legal Action: The injured parties file a lawsuit against the manufacturing company for breaching safety
regulations under Article III, Section 30, seeking compensation for medical expenses, pain, and suffering.
Case: False Advertising of Engineering Services (Article IV, Section 36):
Summary: A mechanical engineering consultancy firm engages in false advertising by making
unsubstantiated claims about the qualifications and expertise of its staff, violating Article IV, Section 36
of the Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: The firm publishes advertisements and promotional materials falsely portraying its engineers as
specialists in areas where they lack proper accreditation or experience.
Legal Action: Competing firms or consumer advocacy groups file a lawsuit against the consultancy firm
for deceptive advertising practices under Article IV, Section 36, seeking injunctions and corrective
measures to prevent further misrepresentation.
Case: Failure to Maintain Engineering Records (Article IV, Section 34):
Summary: A mechanical engineering firm neglects to maintain proper records of engineering documents
and plans, violating Article IV, Section 34 of the Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: The firm fails to organize and store engineering records, including design drawings, calculations,
and project specifications, as required by law.
Legal Action: Regulatory authorities or affected clients file a lawsuit against the engineering firm for noncompliance with Article IV, Section 34, seeking penalties and corrective action to ensure proper recordkeeping practices.
Case: Discrimination in Hiring Practices (Article IV, Section 38):
Summary: A mechanical engineering company discriminates against job applicants based on age, gender,
or other irrelevant factors, violating Article IV, Section 38 of the Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: The company systematically rejects qualified candidates or offers lower salaries based on
discriminatory criteria, undermining the principles of equal opportunity and fairness in employment.
Legal Action: Affected applicants or advocacy groups file a lawsuit against the company for employment
discrimination under Article IV, Section 38, seeking damages and injunctive relief to enforce antidiscrimination provisions.
Case: Unauthorized Use of Professional Seal or Stamp (Article IV, Section 33):
Summary: An individual falsely affixes a licensed mechanical engineer's professional seal or stamp to
engineering documents without the engineer's consent, violating Article IV, Section 33 of the Philippine
Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: The individual forges the engineer's signature and seal to certify engineering plans or reports,
misleading clients or authorities about the authenticity of the documents.
Legal Action: The licensed engineer files a lawsuit against the individual for unauthorized use of their
professional seal or stamp under Article IV, Section 33, seeking damages and legal remedies for
misrepresentation and professional misconduct.
Case: Violation of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Requirements (Article IV, Section 39):
Summary: A licensed mechanical engineer fails to comply with Continuing Professional Development
(CPD) requirements mandated by Article IV, Section 39 of the Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: The engineer neglects to participate in accredited CPD programs or submit documentation of
completed CPD activities as required for license renewal.
Legal Action: The Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) initiates disciplinary proceedings against the
engineer for non-compliance with CPD requirements under Article IV, Section 39, seeking penalties and
suspension of the professional license until CPD obligations are fulfilled.
Case: Failure to Obtain Permit for Engineering Projects (Article III, Section 29):
Summary: A construction company proceeds with a mechanical engineering project without obtaining
the required permits from the relevant authorities, violating Article III, Section 29 of the Philippine
Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: The company ignores the regulatory process and begins construction on a mechanical system
installation in a commercial building without securing the necessary permits from the local government
or the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC).
Legal Action: The local government or the PRC files a lawsuit against the construction company for
undertaking the project without the required permits, citing violations of Article III, Section 29, and
seeking penalties and cessation of the unauthorized work
Case: Non-Compliance with Building Codes and Standards (Article III, Section 30):
Summary: A mechanical engineering firm designs HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning)
systems for residential buildings that do not comply with established building codes and standards,
violating Article III, Section 30 of the Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: The firm's designs fail to meet safety, efficiency, or environmental requirements specified in
national or local building codes, posing risks to occupants and potentially causing regulatory violations.
Legal Action: Building authorities or affected property owners file a lawsuit against the engineering firm
for non-compliance with building codes and standards under Article III, Section 30, seeking corrective
action, fines, and compensation for any resulting damages or remediation costs.
Case: Unauthorized Engineering Practice by Foreign Nationals (Article II, Section 27):
Summary: Foreign nationals engage in the practice of mechanical engineering in the Philippines without
the appropriate authorization or recognition, violating Article II, Section 27 of the Philippine Mechanical
Engineering Act.
Details: The foreign individuals offer engineering services, such as design consultations or project
management, without holding valid licenses or permits recognized by Philippine authorities.
Legal Action: The Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) or regulatory agencies file a lawsuit against
the foreign nationals for unauthorized practice of mechanical engineering under Article II, Section 27,
seeking injunctions, fines, and deportation orders for non-compliance with licensure requirements.
Case: Inadequate Professional Liability Insurance Coverage (Article IV, Section 37):
Summary: A licensed mechanical engineer fails to maintain adequate professional liability insurance
coverage as required by Article IV, Section 37 of the Philippine Mechanical Engineering Act.
Details: The engineer's insurance policy does not provide sufficient coverage to protect clients or third
parties against financial losses resulting from errors, omissions, or negligence in the engineer's
professional services.
Legal Action: A client or affected party files a lawsuit against the engineer for inadequate professional
liability insurance coverage under Article IV, Section 37, seeking compensation for damages exceeding
the limits of the engineer's insurance policy.