Sison v. Board of Accountancy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Pursuant to Act No. 342, several British subjects, including respondent Robert Orr Ferguson, were granted certificates to practice accountancy in the Philippines without examination. These certificates were based on their possession of chartered accountant certificates from private societies in England and other parts of the British Empire. Procedural History: The Board of Accountancy, upon reviewing the matter and considering an opinion from the Secretary of Justice, concluded that there was no law regulating accountancy in England and that the practice there was limited to members of private societies. Consequently, the Board resolved to suspend the validity of the certificates issued to these British accountants, pending their ability to prove that Filipinos were allowed to take professional accountant examinations in the UK or could be registered as chartered accountants there. The Petition: Petitioner J. A. Sison filed a petition for certiorari seeking the revocation of Robert Orr Ferguson's certificate, arguing that there was no reciprocity between the Philippines and the United Kingdom regarding the practice of accountancy, and that Ferguson's certificate did not meet the requirements for reciprocity. The Supreme Court was asked to order the Board of Accountancy to revoke the certificate.
Issue(s)
Whether the certificate issued to Robert Orr Ferguson by the Board of Accountancy should be revoked on the ground of lack of reciprocity between the Philippines and the United Kingdom regarding the practice of accountancy.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court found no reason to suspend Robert Orr Ferguson from the practice of his profession, as the record failed to show that the suspension was based on any cause provided by the Accountancy Law.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the admission of Robert Orr Ferguson to practice accountancy in the Philippines, based on his chartered accountant certificate from Glasgow, did not necessarily fall under the strict principle of reciprocity as it is known in International Law. Instead, the Court found that Ferguson's admission was included in the meaning of "comity" as expressed in the alternative condition of the proviso of Section 12 of Act No. 3105, as amended. This provision states that registration is allowed if the foreign country or state "does not restrict the right of the Filipino certified public accountants to practice therein." The record included two notes from the British Minister accredited to the Philippine Republic, dated November 5, 1946, and April 15, 1947. These notes confirmed that there is no governmental control over the accounting profession in the United Kingdom, any resident regardless of nationality may engage in the profession without formality, and qualified Philippine citizens are allowed to practice accountancy, including income tax accounting, in the United Kingdom. The Court took judicial notice of the treaty of friendship and commerce between the Philippines and the United Kingdom and the presence of diplomatic envoys, finding no reason to doubt the statements and assurances made by the British diplomatic representative. Under these circumstances, the Court concluded that even if the British Government's attitude did not amount to strict reciprocity, it clearly fell within the realm of comity, as contemplated by Philippine law. Therefore, since there was no evidence that Ferguson's suspension was based on any cause provided by the Accountancy Law, and the condition of comity was met, his existing registration and certificate should be upheld.
Main Doctrine
The principle of comity, rather than strict reciprocity, may govern the admission of foreign professionals to practice in the Philippines, especially when the foreign country's laws do not restrict Filipino professionals and diplomatic assurances of reciprocal rights are provided.