Garcia v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Arturo E. Garcia sought admission to the Philippine Bar without undergoing the required bar examinations. He alleged that he was a Filipino citizen who had completed his law course in Spain, graduating as a "Licenciado En Derecho" from the Central University of Madrid. He further claimed that he was qualified to practice law in Spain and, by virtue of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State, he should be allowed to practice law in the Philippines without examination. Procedural History: This matter originated from a petition filed directly with the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The Petition: Arturo E. Garcia filed a verified petition praying for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines without taking the bar examinations. His primary argument rested on the provisions of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Philippines and Spain, asserting that this treaty entitled him to practice law in the Philippines without examination, given his law degree obtained in Spain and his qualification to practice there.
Issue(s)
Whether the provisions of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State can be invoked by a Filipino citizen to be admitted to the Philippine Bar without taking the bar examinations. Whether an international treaty can modify or supersede the laws and regulations governing admission to the practice of law in the Philippines, particularly the requirement of passing the bar examinations.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The provisions of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions cannot be invoked by the applicant to be admitted to the Philippine Bar without taking the bar examinations. Such a treaty cannot modify the laws and regulations governing admission to the practice of law in the Philippines, as this falls under the exclusive constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the provisions of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State could not be invoked by the applicant. Article II of the Treaty explicitly states that "The Nationals of each of the two countries who shall have obtained recognition of the validity of their academic degrees by virtue of the stipulations of this Treaty, can practice their professions within the territory of the Other, . . .." This clearly indicates that the Treaty was intended to govern Filipino citizens practicing in Spain and Spanish nationals practicing in the Philippines. Since the applicant is a Filipino citizen seeking to practice in the Philippines, he is subject to the laws of his own country and not entitled to the privileges extended to Spanish nationals practicing in the Philippines. On Issue 2: The Court further clarified that even if the applicant were a Spanish national, the privileges provided in the Treaty are expressly made subject to the laws and regulations of the contracting State in whose territory it is desired to exercise the legal profession. Article I of the Treaty states that nationals who obtained degrees shall be deemed competent to exercise said professions in the territory of the Other, "subject to the laws and regulations of the latter." In the Philippines, Section 1 of Rule 127, in conjunction with Sections 2, 9, and 16 thereof, requires that any person must first successfully pass the bar examinations before being allowed to practice law. Moreover, the Court emphasized that the Treaty, concluded between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State, could not have been intended to modify the laws and regulations governing admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. This is because the Executive Department may not encroach upon the constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law, as reserved only to the Congress of the Philippines under Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court's constitutional prerogative to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines cannot be modified or repealed by an international treaty entered into by the Executive Department. Furthermore, any privilege granted by such a treaty is expressly subject to the laws and regulations of the contracting State where the profession is to be exercised, necessitating compliance with Philippine bar examination requirements.