Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila FEBRUARY 12, i988 Genulemen Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court Ru Bane dated eh FEBRUARY 11, 1988 3eM. No. 419 (RE: (Petition for Admission to the Philippine’ Bar — Ramon J, Quisumbing).— Ranon J. Quisumbing, @ Citizen and resi iout of ene Philippines who obtained his degree in 1 joctoren) from Georgetown University Lew ce Washington, 9.C., who took and passed the cxr 3xeniiwtions of the Distrigt kag been (gamitte: vsrious—juci: the C federal Columbia ana the State of /irginie ani to the) practice of law :4 fons in th! Supreme Jour” fhe petition male behulf relise on the followins grounds: 3 mule 133, on 4, of th’ gules of court. |. 2. Comiy or reciprocity with the Steve of Hew fork. 3. Phe case of In Re Shoop, 42 Phil, 233 (1929). fe fie: resairewents under tule 133, eoeetey, 4 wot met. Phe provision reais: Sec. 4. Requirements for applicancs etner jurisdictions. —- ~ Applicents for aipissio: who, w2ing Filipino citizens, ere snrolled attorneys in good atending in’ the Supreme Sourt of the United States or in anypage * Bi F No. 418 bruary 11, 1988 circuit court of appeals or district court therein, or in the highest court of any State or Territory of the United States, and who can show by satisfactory certificates that they have practiced at least five years in any of said courts, that such practice began before July 4, 1946. and thet they have never been suspended or disbarred, may, in the discretion of the Court, be admitted without examination. (Underscoring supplied.) Applicant admita that he does not satisfy the requirement that practice in the foreign jurisdiction must have commenced prior to July 4, 1946. (Petition. However, he insists that” give: nig qualifications and experience, he should nevertheless "in the discretion of the Court, be admitted without examination. B. There in at present no Mhilierine rule authorizing the the Philippine Bar on fhe basis of Reciprocity or comity does not operate in the abstract. A local law governs and regulates the extent by which reciprocity may be invoked as the source of | right or privilege. The) Rilles Gf Court! promuigatea’ by the Supreme Court wnich Under thel987 Constitutson has the able power fo promulgate rules concerning admission to < The court notes that Rule 520.9 of the Rules of the New York court of Appeals does not impose reciprocity as a conditionfor aan: admittei to on on The hi aimission to sec. 4 cited are not met benefits unde: Oo. In Re Shoop is no longer controlling. Applic no longer be b: under the old Admission to t on July 1, 192 1964 Rules of phe ¢ for edmiasion obtained their their teking the Philippine 1983 Bar Bxemi Jose Romalo (3 In vie Resclved to Quisumbing to passing the bai Atty. Norberto Lawyer's Tan Bldg. 25 Calirsya st integrated Ba page 3 BM.No. 419 February 11, 1 of foreign, trained lawyers ao muy 2 New Yors bar without examins: ton. mited application of comity as £ grouni the Philippine var is embodied in tls above. Since the conditions tere by spplicent, then he cannot eluin othe rule, ant himself admits that In Re Shoop "au: inding precedent." Said case was ie-ide: Rules for the Sxamination of Can lidates he Practice of Law, which becema off Oy but which hed been long superseici o Court. ourt acting on earlier similar apslice to lew practice by Pilipino citizens who Jew degrees abroad dexied them ani ce ef the bar examinations for admission Bar. (3.M. 371 Re: Petition te tz! nation - Jose Miguel Diokno; ulso ae: 953); Re: Alejandro A. Lienzaco (1 w of the sbove considerations, the DSN¥ the pevition for admission of %uson the practice of law without tecin r extuningtions.” Very truly yours, lerk of Co! Ab J. Quisumbing (x) of the Phil. (x) Doha Julia Vargas Avenue Ortigas Bldg. Complex Pasig, Metro Manila RBar Confidant (x) Supreme Court rsl/bm.nu. 41% 988 for a3 y a fo v th bions yaired to ahearte 355)5 ourt os end