Gramercy got Makati OK after 5 floors added


UNDER CONSTRUCTION. It is still under construction, contrary to a front page photograph in Thursday’s issue, where the Inquirer erroneously said it has already been completed. The Knightsbridge Residences was mistaken for the building soon to rise in Makati City. ROMY HOMILLADA

MANILA, Philippines—The 73-story Gramercy Residences secured an amended building permit from the Makati City government only on June 8, 2012, more than a year after the construction of the skyscraper’s five additional floors was completed, according to the local Office of the Building Official (OBO).

In a Feb. 25, 2013, letter to the National Building Code Office, OBO legal officer Amando Fabio Jr. said the permit was issued to Century City Development Corp. (CCDC), Gramercy’s owner and developer, “after proper evaluation and assessment of all documents, plans and specifications submitted to this office and after a thorough inspection of the building.”

The inspection, he said, was “conducted by our technical staff pursuant to the provisions of the National Building Code and its implementing rules and regulations.”

“It is true that it took only four days from the date of application (June 4, 2012) for the issuance of the building permit since all plans, specifications and related requirements submitted to this office conformed to the requirements of the code and its regulated regulations,” Fabio said.

“Further, it is not required of us to indicate in the permit itself that we conducted the inspection on the building, since this is part of our mandate. Corollary to this, the International Organization for Standardization requires us to issue the required permits within seven working days from submission of all requirements,” he said.

“There is no need for this office to conduct any investigation to determine the liability, if any, of CCDC, since a valid permit was already issued for the five additional floors.”

The real estate firm Picar Development Corp., which is building the 74-story Stratford Residences near Gramercy on Kalayaan Avenue in Makati, has alleged that the addition of the five floors atop Gramercy was illegal. The Inquirer erroneously suggested yesterday in its report on the controversy that Stratford had been completed.


“It’s a must.”

Elizabeth Pilorin, head of the Department of Public Works and Highways’ (DPWH) public information and assistance division, was referring to the government requirement of securing a building permit before constructing or repairing a building, as well as adding a portion to the structure.

Citing the National Building Code of the Philippines, she told the Inquirer “it is a requirement” and is “clearly stated” in the same law, also known as Presidential Decree No. 1096.

Pilorin was apparently referring to Section 301 of the code, which states: “No person, firm or corporation, including any agency or instrumentality of the government, shall construct, alter, repair, convert, use, occupy, move, demolish and add any building/structure or any portion thereof, or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a building permit from the Building Official assigned in the place where the subject building/structure is located or to be done.”

On the other hand, a building permit shall not be required for the following:

NOT YET . Artist’s perspective of the 74-story Stratford Residences on Kalayaan Avenue in Makati City, where International School Manila used to stand. CONTRIBUTED IMAGE

Minor construction of sheds, greenhouses, children’s playhouses, aviaries, poultry houses and the like, open terraces or patios, window grills, garden pools for water plants or aquarium fish and garden masonry walls.

Repair work on deteriorated roofing sheets or tiles, gutters and ceilings, partition walls, doors and windows, and flooring.

Sought for comment, architect Emmanuel Cuntapay, director of the DPWH-attached National Building Code Office, said violators of the building permit-related provisions of the code face only administrative liabilities.

“They have no criminal liabilities. They face only administrative penalties, like fines,” he said.

In a phone interview, Cuntapay said “with the construction of the additional floors of [Gramercy Residences], at stake here is public safety.”

“That is why it is a DPWH concern,” he added.

In a Jan. 28 letter-complaint to the Department of Public Works and Highways, Picar said Gramercy secured an amended building permit “long after, not before” the five floors were completed in early 2011.

Picar also pointed out that “the construction of the five additional floors was outside Gramercy’s approved building permit.” The original building permit, issued in 2007, said Gramercy could only build a 68-story structure, Picar claimed.

On March 13, Public Works Secretary Rogelio Singson issued an order preventing the owners of Gramercy from issuing occupancy permits for the top five floors of the structure pending the resolution of the Picar complaint.

Singson also directed the OBO to submit the Gramercy file, including the skyscraper’s structural soundness, to the department.

Get Inquirer updates while on the go, add us on these apps:

Inquirer Viber

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • George DeCarlo

    The emphasis of AFTER is mine and I do not know why it was not placed there by the Inquirer. When they applied for the additional floors AFTER the original plans were approved, it took ONLY 4 DAYS for that new permit to be approved according to the article. Hmm, four days for a major structural change to the building to be approved.

    I had a conversation recently with someone who told me that there was at great expense a model tested in the US. But, how many floors did that model have if done? Even if it had additional floors, was the subsequent construction done based upon the floors originally permitted? So many questions and now so many claims.

    sohocentralcondominium blogspot com is where more information has been and will be posted.

  • George DeCarlo

    I forgot to place this important comment from a Unit Owner at Gramercy: A caretaker had told us weeks ago that someone with a unit on the top floor was in the lobby asking if anyone felt it. They asked feel what? Seems he could feel the sway of the building. He was actually getting motion sickness. While tall buildings must move it should not be felt. Typhoons are coming. With greater winds the structural integrity of building may be compromised.

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94


editors' picks



latest videos