J.A. SISON, PETITIONER, VS. THE BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY AND ROBERT ORR FERGUZON, RESPONDENTS.

In his petition for certiorari against the Board of Accountancy
and Robert Orr Ferguson, J. A. Sison prays that this Court render judgment
“ordering the respondent Board of Accountancy to revoke the certificate issued
to Robert Orr Ferguson, a British subject admitted without examination because
there does not exist any reciprocity between the Philippines and the United
Kingdom regarding the practice of accountancy.”

Upon perusal of the pleadings and for a clear understanding of
the issue raised by petitioner the following facts, which we believe are not
disputed, shall be stated:

Pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 3105 as amended by
Commonwealth Act No. 342, several persons, British subjects, and the possessors
of certificates as chartered accountants issued by various incorporated private
accountants’ societies in England and other parts of the British Empire, were,
without examination, granted by the respondent Board of Accountancy,
certificates as public accountants to practice their profession in this
jurisdiction. The respondent Robert Orr Ferguson was granted certificate No.
713-W on January 14, 1939 pursuant to resolution No. 24 of the Board of
Accountancy, series of 1938.

Subsequently, the Board of Accountancy, upon the examination of
the case of those British accountants who were registered as certified public
accountants without examination, came to the conclusion that, there being no law
which regulates the practice of accountancy in England, and that the practice of
accountancy in said country being limited only to the members of incorporated
private accountants’ societies, the certificates issued by the institute of
chartered accountants and other similar societies in England and Wales cannot be
considered on a par with the public accountants’ certificates issued by the
Philippine Board of Accountancy, which is a government entity. In view thereof,
the respondent Board of Accountancy “resolved to suspend, * * * the validity of
the C.P.A. certificates of the above-mentioned candidates pending the final
revocation thereof should they fail to prove to the satisfaction of the Board
within sixty days’ notice that: (a) Filipinos are allowed to take the
professional accountant examination given by the British government, if any, and
(b) Filipino certified public accountants can, upon application, be
registered as chartered accountants or granted similar degrees by the British
Government.” (Annex B.)

Such action of the Board of Accountancy was based on an opinion
rendered by the Secretary of Justice, on October 1, 1946 (Annex A), to the
effect that the certificate issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in
England and Wales does not meet the requirement of section 41 of Rule 123 of the
Rules of Court and that the negative statement therein, as quoted above, does
not establish the existence of reciprocity, which induced the board to hold that
the registration, without examination, of those British subjects as certified
public accountants, is in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of Act
No. 3105 as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 342.

However, the Secretary of Justice, answering a query from the
Secretary of Finance, in an opinion rendered on February 10, 1947 “on the
legality of the suspension or revocation” of the certificates issued to those
British subjects as contemplated in resolution No. 5, series of 1946 of the
Board of Accountancy, was of the opinion that the board may not suspend or
revoke the certificates previously granted to the ten British accountants herein
involved, including respondent Robert Orr Ferguson, because such action is in
contravention of section 13 of Act No. 3105 as amended which explicitly provides
that the suspension or revocation of a certificate issued under the said Act may
be done by the board for unprofessional conduct of the holder or other
sufficient cause. The Secretary of Justice further said that he believes
that “the change in administrative interpretation with respect to the existence
of reciprocity between the Philippines and Great Britain as to the practice of
accountancy,” does not constitute sufficient cause for the suspension or
revocation of the certificates in question within the meaning of said provision.
The opinion of the Secretary of Justice further said that if those certificates
were issued to those British persons on the assumption that there is
“reciprocity between Great Britain and the Philippines as to the practice of
certified public accountancy in the Philippines” a change of administrative
interpretation is not favored (42 Am. Jur., 412). While in the instant case the
public policy with respect to the practice of foreign accountants in this
country remains unchanged, the action intended by the Board of Accountancy, to
suspend or revoke the certificates already issued to such persons must be based
on some other grounds, such as ignorance, incapacity, deception or fraud on the
part of the holder of the certificate.

In the light of the above, the petitioner brought this action
mainly on the ground that there is no reciprocity “between the Philippines and
the United Kingdom” as regards the practice of the profession of certified
public accountant, because the certificate submitted by respondent Robert Orr
Ferguson “is not a public or official record, and does not meet the requirements
of section 41, Rule 21 [123] of the Rules of Court.” And that furthermore, the
negative statement that “there is nothing in the laws of the United Kingdom to
restrict the right of a Filipino certified public accountant to practice as
professional accountant therein,” does not establish the existence of
reciprocity.

Section 12 of Act No. 3105, as amended, reads:

“SEC. 12. Any person who has been engaged in the professional
accountancy work in the Philippine Islands for a period of five years or more
prior to the date of his application, and who holds certificates as certified
public accountant, or as chartered accountant, or other similar certificates or
degrees in the country of his nationality, shall be entitled to registration as
certified public accountant and to receive a certificate of registration as such
certified public accountant from the Board, Provided such country or
state does not restrict the right of Filipino certified public accountants to
practice therein or grants reciprocal rights to Filipinos, and provided that
application for their registration shall be filed with the Board not later than
December 31, 1938.”

From the text of the above-quoted section 12 of the Accountancy
Law, it is inferred that the registration as certified public accountant and the
issuance of the corresponding certificate as such certified public accountant,
to a person who for five years has been engaged in professional accountancy work
in the Philippines and is a holder of a certificate as certified public
accountant, or as a chartered accountant, or other similar degrees in the
country of his origin, is predicated on the fact that the country of origin of
such foreign applicant (a) “does not restrict the right of Filipino
certified public accountants to practice therein,” (b) “grants
reciprocal rights to Filipinos,” and (c) the application for
registration “be filed with the Board not later than December 31, 1938.”

In the case at bar, while the profession of certified public
accountant is not controlled or regulated by the Government of Great Britain,
the country of origin of respondent Robert Orr Ferguson, according to the
record, said respondent had been admitted in this country to the practice of his
profession as certified public accountant on the strength of his membership of
the Institute of Accountants and Actuaries in Glasgow (England), incorporated by
Royal Charter, 1855. The question of his entitlement to admission to the
practice of his profession in this jurisdiction, does not, therefore, come under
reciprocity, as this principle is known in International Law, but is included in
the meaning of comity, as expressed in the alternative condition of the proviso
of the above quoted section 12 which says: such country or state does not
restrict the right of Filipino certified public accountants to practice
therein.

“Mutuality, reciprocity, and comity as bases or
elements.—International Law is founded largely upon mutuality, reciprocity,
and the principle of comity of nations. Comity, in this connection, is neither a
matter of absolute obligation on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good
will on, the other; it is the recognition which one nation allows within its
territory to the acts of foreign governments and their tribunals, having due
regard both to international duty and convenience and to the rights of its own
citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws. The fact
of reciprocity does not necessarily influence the application of the doctrine of
comity, although it may do so and has been given consideration in some
instances.” (30 Am. Jur,, 178; Hilton vs. Guyot, 159 U.S., 113, 40 Law. ed.,
95; 16 S. Ct., 139.)

In Hilton vs. Guyot (supra), the highest court of the
United States said that comity “is the recognition which one nation allows
within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another
nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the
rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of
its laws.” Again, in Bank of Augusta vs. Earle, 38 U. S., 13 Pet. 519, 589,
Chief Justice Taney, speaking for the court while Mr. Justice Story—well-known
author of the treatise on Conflict of Laws—was a member of it, and largely
adopting his words, said:

“* * * It is needless to enumerate here the instances in which
by the general practice of civilized countries, the laws of the one will, by the
comity of nations, be recognized and executed in another, where the rights of
individuals are concerned * * * The comity thus extended to other nations is no
impeachment of sovereignty. It is the voluntary act of the nation by which it is
offered, and is inadmissible when contrary to its policy, or prejudicial to its
interest. But it contributes so largely to promote justice between individuals,
and to produce a friendly intercourse between the sovereignties to which they
belong, that courts of justice have continually acted upon it, as a part of the
voluntary law of nations * * * It is not the comity of the courts, but the
comity of the nation, which is administered and ascertained in the same way,
and guided by the same reasoning, by which all other principles of municipal law
are ascertained and guided.”

The record shows that the British Minister accredited to the
Philippine Republic in two notes concerning this question, addressed to the
President of the Philippines in his capacity as Head of the Department of
Foreign Affairs, said:

“* * * there is no governmental control of the accounting
profession in the United Kingdom and any resident of the United Kingdom, of
whatever nationality, may engage in the profession of accounting without
formality; and * * * that the high standards of the accounting profession in the
United Kingdom are maintained by a number of private societies whose membership
is restricted to persons who have passed a different professional examination
but impose no restriction whatsoever on membership with respect of nationality.”
(Note of November 5, 1946.)

Again, the British Minister, in his note of April 15, 1947,
further said:

“Your Excellency will recall that doubt had been expressed by
the Philippine authorities concerned as to whether qualified public accountants
would be allowed to practice income tax accounting in the United Kingdom.
Accordingly, I requested a ruling on this point, and I am happy to inform Your
Excellency that I have been authorized by His Majesty’s Principal Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs to state, for the information of the Government of the
Philippines, that qualified Phillippine citizens are allowed to practice the
profession of accountancy, including income tax accounting, in the United
Kingdom.”

We are bound to take notice of the fact that the Philippines
and the United Kingdom, are bound by a treaty of friendship and commerce, and
each nation is represented in the other by the corresponding diplomatic envoy.
There is no reason whatsoever to doubt the statement and assurance made by the
diplomatic representative of the British Government in the Philippines,
regarding the practice of the accountancy profession in the United Kingdom and
the fact that Filipino certified public accountants will be admitted to practice
their profession in the United Kingdom should they choose to do so.

Under such circumstances, and without necessarily construing
that such attitude of the British Government in the premises, as represented by
the British Minister, amounts to reciprocity, we may at least state that it
comes within the realm of comity, as contemplated in our law.

It appearing that the record fails to show that the suspension
of this respondent is * * * based on any of the causes provided by the
Accountancy Law, we find no reason why Robert Orr Ferguson, who had previously
been registered as certified public accountant and issued the corresponding
certificate which authorizes him to practice his profession as certified public
accountant in the Philippine Islands, should be suspended from the practice of
his profession in these Islands.

The petition is denied, with costs.

Moran, C.J.,
Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes,
JJ., concur.