Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CANDIDO RABINO v. STATE REGISTRATION BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS (09/28/82)

decided: September 28, 1982.

CANDIDO RABINO, PETITIONER
v.
STATE REGISTRATION BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the State Registration Board for Professional Engineers, in the case of In Re: Rule to Show Cause Why Candido P. Rabino should be Granted a License To Practice as a Professional Engineer.

COUNSEL

Walter K. Swartzkopf, Jr., for petitioner.

Glenn R. Davis, Assistant Counsel, with him James J. Kutz, Assistant Counsel, David F. Phifer, Chief Counsel, and Jay Waldman, General Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 192]

Candido Rabino (petitioner) appeals here from a decision of the State Registration Board for Professional Engineers (Board) denying him a license as a professional engineer.

The petitioner received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from Feati University, located in Manila, Philippine Islands in July of 1965. He has been working in the engineering arena for 16 years, the last nine of those while living in the United States. On or about November 13, 1975 he filed an application for licensure and registration with the Board, and was informed that he would have to take and pass two written examinations. He then passed the examination in civil engineering, but failed the engineer-in-training examination. His four subsequent attempts to pass the latter have also resulted in failure.

Subsequently, he sought to gain licensure and registration under the "grandfather clause" of Section 151(b)(3) of the Professional Engineers Registration

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 193]

Law (Law)*fn1 which requires that the applicant be of good character, at least 25 years of age and possess the ability to speak and write the English language. It is undisputed that he has met these criteria. In addition, however, this section also requires evidence of engineering competence by a showing, inter alia, of graduation from an accredited engineering school. Feati University has never been approved by the Board as an educational institution within the meaning of the statute, and so the Board issued a letter to the petitioner again refusing to license him, this time on the grounds that he has not only failed to pass the written examinations required but that he cannot be "grandfathered" because of the unapproved status of Feati University. A formal hearing was then requested and held to determine whether or not the petitioner could meet his burden of proof in showing Feati to be an approved institution and the Board found that he had so failed to carry the burden and again refused to license him. This appeal followed.

Our scope of review is, of course, limited to a determination of whether or not constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed, or the necessary findings were supported by substantial evidence.*fn2 The facts in this matter are not in dispute.

The petitioner argues that the Board's policy of approving schools based on their rating from the National Council of State Boards of Engineering Examiners (NCEE) violates the provisions of 45 P.S. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.