In Re: Petition of Ramon Quisumbing for Admission to the Bar

Bar Matter No. 419

Facts:

Ramon Quisumbing, a citizen and resident of the Philippines who obtained his degree in law from
Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. who took and passed the bar examinations
of the District of Columbia and State of Virginia and has been admitted to the practice of law in
various jurisdictions in the United States including the Federal Supreme Court, applies for
admission to the practice of law without need of taking the bar examinations. The petition made
on his behalf replied on the following grounds:

1. Section 4, Rule 138, of the Rules of court;

2. Comity or reciprocity, with the state of NY; and
3. The case of In Re Shoop, 41 Phil. 213

Issue:

WON, from the foregoing averments, petitioner may be admitted to the Philippine bar without
having to take the bar examinations.

Held:

The requirements under Section 4, Rule 138, are not met.

The provision reads:

Sec 4. Requirements for applicants from other jurisdictions – applicants for admission
who, being Filipino citizens, are enrolled attorneys in good standing in the SC of U.S. or in
any Circuit Court of Appeals or District Court therein, or in the highest court of any State
or territory of the U.S., and who can show by satisfactory certificates that they have
practiced at least 5 years in any courts, and that such practice began before July 4,1946, and
that they have never been suspended or disbarred, may, in the discretion of the Court, be
admitted without examination.

In his petition, the applicant admits that he does not satisfy the requirement that practice in the
foreign jurisdiction must have commenced prior to July 4,1946. However, he insists that given his
qualifications and experience, he should nevertheless, “in the discretion of the Court, be admitted
without examination.”

The correct application of the aforecited Rule is that discretion to admit one to the bar may be
exercised only after it is shown that the applicant has complied with all the requirements
thereunder.

Moreover, there is at present no Philippine rule authorizing the admission to the Philippine bar
because of reciprocity or comity.
Reciprocity or comity does not operate in the abstract. A local law governs and regulates the extent
by which recipcrocity may be invoked as the source of a right or privilege. The Rules of Court
promulgated by the SC which under the 1987 Constitution as the sole power to promulgate rules
concerning admission to the practice of law in the Philippines, makes no provision for admission
to the bar on the basis of reciprocity. The Court notes that Rule 520.9 of the Rules of the New Your
Court of Appeals does not impose reciprocity as a condition for admission of foreign trained lawyers
who may be admitted to the NY bar without examination.

The limited application of comity as a ground for admission to the Philippine bar is embodied in
Rule 138, Sec. 4. Sine the conditions therein were not met by the applicant, then he cannot claim
the benefits under the rule.

Applicant himself admits that In Re Shoop “may no longer be binding precedent.” Said case was
decided under the old rules of examination of candidates for admission to the practice of law, which
became effective on July 1, 1920, but which had been long superseded by the 1964 Rules of Court.

The court acting on earlier similar applications for admission to law practice by Filipino citizens
who obtained their law degree abroad denied them and required their taking of the bar
examinations for admission to the Philippine bar.

In view of the above considerations, the Court denied the petition of the applicant to the
practice of law without taking and passing the bar examinations.

Reference:

Legal Profession by Edgardo M. Villareal II

You can purchase at http://www.rexestore.com/