984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED In re Garcia Lava v. Gonzales, L-23048, July 31, 1964; Gorospe v. Pena. florida, 101 Phil. 886). The exception to the rule was laid down in Dimayuga v. Fernandez, 43 Phil. 304. A prosecuting fiscal, however, may be compelled by mandamus to amend an information from homicide to mur- der (Bernabe vs. Balinas, Jr., et al., L-22000, Nov. 29, 1966). August 15, 1961. IN RE: PETITION OF ARTURO EFREN GARCIA for admission to the Philippine Bar without taking the examination. ARTURO EFREN GARCIA, petitioner. Philippine bar; Requisites for admission—A Filipino citi- zen who had finished the law course in Spain and thereafter allowed to practice the profession in said country, is not entitled to practice law in the Philippines without *passing the required bar examinations provided for in Section 1 of Rule 127 of the Rules of Court. Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions; Professionals governed by treaty.—The Treaty on Academic De- grees and the Exercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State, is 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. A Filipino citizen desiring to. practice the legal profession in the Philippines, is not entitled to the privileges extended to Spanish nationals desiring to practice in the Philip- pines. Same; Treaty cannot modify regulations governing’ admis- sion to Philippine bar—The aforementioned Treaty could not have been intended to modify the laws and regulations govern- ing 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 promul- gate rules for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines, the power to repeal, alter or supplement such rules being reserved only to the Congress of the Philippines. (See Sec. 13, Art- VIII, Philippine Constitution.) RESOLUTION BARRERA, J.:VOL. 2, AUGUST 15, 1961 985 Arturo E. Garcia has applied for admission to the prac- tice of IAW in the Philippines without submitting to the yequired bar examinations. In his verified petition, he rs, among others, that he is a Filipino citizen born in colod City, Province of Negros Occidental, of Filipino parentage; that he had taken and finished in Spain, the course of “Bachillerato Superior”; that he was approved, selected and qualified by the “Instituto de Cervantes” for admission to the Central University of Madrid where he studied and finished the law course graduating there as spicenciado En Derecho”; that thereafter he was allowed to practice the law profession in Spain; and that under the provisions of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Republic of the Phil- ippines and the Spanish state, he is entitled to practice the law profession in the Philippines without submitting to the required bar examinations. After due consideration, the Court resolved to deny the petition on the following grounds: (1) The provisions of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State can not be invoked by applicant, Under Article 11 thereof; “The Nationals of cach 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 pro- fessions within the territory of the Other, w x x.” (Italics supplied). from which it could clearly be discerned that said Treaty was intended to govern Filipino citizens desiring to prac- tice their profession in Spain, and the citizens of Spain de- siring to practice their professions in the Philippines. Ap- Plicant 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 pri- Vileges extended to Spanish nationals, desiring to practice in the Philippines, ‘ia Article I of the Treaty, in its pertinent part, pro- Vides : ‘986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Estrada vs. Court of Agrarian Relations “The nationals of both countries who shall have obtained degrees or diplomas to practice the liberal professions in either of the Contracting States, issued by competent national author- ities, shall be deemed competent to exercise said professions in the territory of the Other, subject to the laws and regulations of the latter. x x x” It is clear, therefore, that the privileges provided in the Treaty invoked by the applicant are made expressly sub- ject to the laws and regulations of the contracting State in whose territory it is desired to exercise the legal pro- fession; 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 Philippines he must first successfully pass the re- quired bar examinations; and (8) 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 Philip- pines, 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 power to repeal, alter or supplement such rules being reserved only to the Congress of the Philippines. (See Sec. 13, Art’ VIII, Phil. Constitution). Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Pare- des, Dizon, De Leon and Natividad, JJ., concur. Bautista Angelo, J., on leave, took no part. Concepcion, J., took no part. Petition denied. Nos. L-17481:and L-17537 to L-17559. August 15, 1961. LIBERATA ANTONIO ESTRADA, CANUTO CENIZAN, NAZARIO DE LA CRUZ, GENARO ALVARO, ET AL., petitioners, 08 CourT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS and FAUSTINO F. GAl- VAN, respondents, Warehouse receipts; Ri, ‘not to release ipts; Right of manager of bonded warehouse house hes ‘the A posited palay.—The manager of a bonded ware- ight to refuse to release deposited palay for failure