Facts:
Arturo Efren Garcia, a Filipino citizen born in Bacolod City, sought to be admitted to the practice of law in the Philippines without taking the bar examination. Garcia had completed his “Bachillerato Superior” in Spain and graduated with a “Licenciado En Derecho” degree from the Central University of Madrid. He was later permitted to practice law in Spain. Garcia argued that, under the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Profession between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State, he was entitled to practice law in the Philippines without taking the bar exam.
Procedural Posture:
Garcia filed a verified petition before the Philippine Supreme Court, asserting that the treaty provisions allowed him to practice law in the Philippines by virtue of his qualifications and legal practice in Spain, without having to take the Philippine bar exam.
Issues:
1. Whether the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Profession between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State can be invoked by a Filipino citizen seeking to practice law in the Philippines.
2. Whether the treaty provisions supersede the laws and regulations regarding admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.
3. Whether the treaty encroaches upon the constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court to regulate admissions to the practice of law in the Philippines.
Court’s Decision:
The Philippine Supreme Court denied Garcia’s petition.
1. Treaty Interpretation and Nationality:
The Court held that the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Profession between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State could not be invoked by Garcia. Under Article III of the treaty, the provisions apply to the nationals of either country seeking to practice their profession in the other country. Since Garcia is a Filipino citizen desiring to practice law in the Philippines, he is subject to Philippine laws and the treaty benefits do not extend to him. The treaty was intended for Spanish nationals wishing to practice in the Philippines and vice versa, not for returning Filipino citizens.
2. Supremacy of National Laws and Regulations:
Article I of the treaty stipulates that the nationals of both countries are subject to the laws and regulations of the state where they wish to practice their profession. Therefore, even if the treaty were applicable, Garcia would still be required to comply with Philippine laws, specifically Rules 127, Sections 1, 2, 9, and 16, which mandate passing the bar examination as a prerequisite to practicing law in the Philippines.
3. Constitutional Prerogative of the Supreme Court:
The Court emphasized that the treaty could not have been intended to modify the legal requirements established by the Philippine Supreme Court, as the power to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law resides solely with the Supreme Court, and that power can only be altered, repealed or supplemented by the Philippine Congress. The treaty must be interpreted in a manner that does not infringe upon this constitutional prerogative.
Doctrine:
1. Treaty provisions cannot override national laws regarding professional qualifications unless explicitly stated.
2. The constitutional authority of the Supreme Court to regulate admissions to the practice of law cannot be abrogated by treaties or executive agreements.
Class Notes:
– Key Elements: Article III and Article I of the Treaty; Rules 127 (Sections 1, 2, 9, 16) of the Philippine Regulations; Constitutional Prerogative under Sec. 13, Art. VIII, Phil. Constitution.
– Doctrine: Treaties are subject to national laws; Constitutional authority of the Supreme Court.
– Relevant Statutes: Rule 127, Sections 1, 2, 9, 16.
– Interpretation: Treaty rights for professional practice are bound by local laws and constitutional limits on treaty impacts on judicial powers.
Historical Background:
This case arose during a time when the Philippine legal system was refining its processes for professional admissions, balancing international treaties, and upholding domestic legal statutes. The Philippines was ensuring its sovereignty in professional regulations and constitutional prerogatives amidst increasing globalization and bilateral agreements.
Leave a Reply