ALJDEC - Licensing
22F-P22-038-BTR · Board of Technical Registration · 2023-05-08
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In the Matter of:
Theodore Saquilayan
Registered Engineer
No. 62725,
and
Saquilayan Consulting Engineering
Non-Registrant Firm
Respondents.
No. 22F-P22-038-BTR
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: April 24, 2023
APPEARANCES: Respondents Theodore Saquilayan and Saquilayan Consulting Engineering failed to appear. The Arizona State Board of Technical Registration was represented by Assistant Attorney General Deanie Reh.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent Theodore Saquilayan held Registration No. 62725, issued by the Board of Technical Registration (Board) through the State of Arizona, which became delinquent of September 30, 2022.
Respondent Saquilayan Consulting Engineering (Firm) was not registered with the Board.
On or about September 28, 2021, Respondent, on behalf of the Firm and himself, entered into a contract with Anthony Williams (Williams). Respondent agreed to provide mechanical system designs for a total fee of $1,800.00. The Scope of Services in the contract provided as follows:
SCOPE OF SERVICES
CONSULTANT shall provide mechanical system designs for the building additions currently in construction. Signed mechanical drawings shall be prepared and submitted for homeowner and mechanical contractor use. Scope of the mechanical systems in the existing building shall be limited to capping of ductwork serving the new bedroom. Conventional rooftop units and multi‐zone VRF units shall be compared for the new spaces and options shall be provided to the owner. Additionally, a mechanical system shall be designed and installed for the future build‐out of a garage mezzanine.
On or about September 29, 2021, Williams was invoiced and paid $600.00 to Respondent.
On or about October 19, 2021, Respondent provided an initial drawing to Williams. Williams provided a few corrections/comments to the drawing, and requested that Respondent provide an updated drawing. Williams was also invoiced and paid $600.00 to Respondent.
On or about November 8, 2021, Williams did not hear from Respondent, he followed up, and Respondent stated he would have the drawings later that day or the next day.
After failing to receive the update drawing, Williams placed phone calls, voicemails, text and e-mail messages to Respondent, however, Respondent never responded to the same.
On November 16, 2021, Williams filed a complaint with the Board.
A Notice of Hearing was issued on December 8, 2022, setting a hearing on January 13, 2023, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency.
The Board further provided an Affidavit of Publication which indicated that the Board published the Amended Complaint and Notice of Hearing on February 27, 2023, March 6, 2023, March 13, 2023, and March 20, 2023.
After a continuance, a hearing was held on April 24, 2023. The Board presented the testimony of Kaitlyn Crawford and offered five exhibits into evidence.
Ms. Crawford was an Investigator on the matter and testified as to the above timeline.
Ms. Crawford testified that from November 29, 2021 through June 3, 2022, Board staff attempted numerous times to contact Respondent at his various addresses provided to the Board, to no avail. Ms. Crawford also testified that a Notice of Investigation was sent via certified mail was sent to one of Respondent’s addresses, and was signed for, and accepted by, an unknown individual at that address.
Finally, the Board argued that Respondent failed to apply the knowledge and skill of a registered engineer as he abandoned his client in the middle of a contract. Further, the Board argued that the Firm was in violation of the statutes and rules as it was not registered with the Board.
The commencement of the scheduled hearing was delayed approximately 15 minutes to allow for the late arrival of a representative for Respondent. After the delay, the Administrative Law Judge conducted the hearing in Respondent’s absence, and consequently Respondent presented no evidence to defend its license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board has jurisdiction over Respondent pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-101, et.seq.
Respondent’s actions, as set forth above, constitute grounds for discipline against Respondent pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-128(C)(4) and as it relates to A.A.C. R4-30-301(6), as Respondent failed to abide by the terms of his agreement with Williams to provide a complete and correct drawing.
Further, Respondent’s actions, as set forth above, constitute grounds for discipline against Respondent pursuant to A.R.S. $§ 32-128(C)(4), 32-141(A) and A.A.C. R4-30-301(4) and (20) as Respondent and Firm contracted with Williams to provide engineering services while the Firm was unregistered.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that the Board:
(1) issue Respondent a Letter of Reprimand;
(2) require Respondent to pay restitution to Anthony Williams in the amount of One Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($1,200.00) within thirty (30) days from the effective date of the Order, and provide proof of payment to the Board;
(3) that within six (6) months from the effective date of the Order, Respondent shall pay an administrative penalty of $4,000.00 by certified check or money order made payable to the Board;
(4) within sixty (60) days from the effective date pf the Order, Respondent shall reimburse the Board for attorney’s fees and the cost of investigation of this case in an amount to be determined by the Board, such payment to be made by certified check or money order made payable to the Board; and
(5) that Respondent and Respondent’s Firm shall timely renew their Arizona registration as an engineer and an engineering firm, and timely pay all required registration fees.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, May 8, 2023.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Judith Stapley
Board of Technical Registration
1110 W Washington St # 240
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Deanie Reh
Office of the Attorney General
2005 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004-1592
[email redacted]
Theodore Saquilayan
5812 North 12th Street, Unit 20
Phoenix, AZ 85014
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff