In re Garcia, G.R. No. _____, August 15, 1961

R E S O L U T I O N

(En Banc)

BARRERA, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

Arturo E. Garcia, a Filipino citizen, studied law, became a lawyer and practiced law in Spain. Later, he applied for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines without taking the Philippine bar examinations. He cited the provision of the Treaty of Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Philippines and Spain and argued that he is entitled to practice the law profession in the Philippines even without submitting to the required bar examinations.

II.    THE ISSUE

Can the petitioner validly invoke the subject treaty to justify his petition to be admitted to the practice law in the Philippines without taking the Philippine bar examinations?

III.   THE RULING

[The Court DENIED the petition.]

NO, the petitioner CANNOT validly invoke the subject treaty to justify his petition to be admitted to the practice law in the Philippines without taking the Philippine bar examinations.

[T]he provisions of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State cannot be invoked by applicant. Under Article 11 thereof:

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, . . . (Emphasis supplied).

from which it could clearly be discerned that said Treaty was intended to govern Filipino citizens desiring to practice their profession in Spain, and the citizens of Spain desiring to practice their professions in the Philippines. Applicant is a Filipino citizen desiring to practice the legal profession in the Philippines. He is therefore subject to the laws of his own country and is not entitled to the privileges extended to Spanish nationals desiring to practice in the Philippines.

Article I of the Treaty, in its pertinent part, provides

The nationals of both countries who shall have obtained degree or diplomas to practice the liberal professions in either of the Contracting States, issued by competent national authorities, shall be deemed competent to exercise said professions in the territory of the Other, subject to the laws and regulations of the latter. . .

It is clear, therefore, that the privileges provided in the Treaty invoked by the applicant are made expressly subject to the laws and regulations of the contracting State in whose territory it is desired to exercise the legal profession; and Section 1 of Rule 127, in connection with Sections 2, 9, and 16 thereof, which have the force of law, require that before anyone can practice the legal profession in the Philippine he must first successfully pass the required bar examinations.

The aforementioned 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, for the reason that the Executive Department may not encroach upon the constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines, the lower to repeal, alter or supplement such rules being reserved only to the Congress of the Philippines.

[NOTE (in relation to the incorporation clause): Pacta sunt servanda, a generally accepted principle of international law, cannot be invoked in this case since the treaty cited as justification for Garcia's petition was not even applicable in the first place.]