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 anypage * 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 conditionfor 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