IN RE: PETITION OF ARTURO EFREN GARCIA FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR WITHOUT TAKING THE EXAMINATION. ARTURO EFREN GARCIA, PETITIONER.

Garcia versus the Philippine Bar

The Case

This is Garcia versus the Philippine Bar, an original petition filed directly with the Supreme Court by Arturo Efren Garcia, a Filipino citizen, asking to be admitted to the practice of law in the Philippines without taking the bar examinations. He anchors his claim on the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Profession between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State, having earned his law degree and license to practice in Spain. The case matters because it fixes the boundary between a treaty and the Court's constitutional power over admission to the Bar, and because it teaches that a Filipino invoking a treaty to practice in his own country stands in a different position from the foreign national the treaty was designed to benefit.

Procedural History

The case began and ended in the Supreme Court as an original action. Garcia filed a verified petition directly with the Court for admission to the Philippine Bar without examination. There were no proceedings in a trial court or in the Court of Appeals, and no intermediate appeal. The Supreme Court resolved the petition itself, and denied it.

Facts

Arturo Efren Garcia is a Filipino citizen, born in Bacolod City, Province of Negros Occidental, of Filipino parentage. He pursued his studies in Spain, where he completed the course called Bachillerato Superior. He was then approved, selected, and qualified by the Institute de Cervantes for admission to the Central University of Madrid, where he studied and finished the law course, graduating as Licenciado En Derecho.

Thereafter, he was allowed to practice the law profession in Spain. Returning to the Philippine setting, he filed a verified petition with the Supreme Court, invoking the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Profession between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State. On that basis he claimed the right to practice law in the Philippines without submitting to the required bar examinations.

The Court gave the petition due consideration and resolved to deny it on three grounds: the treaty cannot be invoked by a Filipino citizen against his own country; the treaty itself subjects the privilege to the laws and regulations of the receiving State, which require the bar examinations; and the Executive Department may not, through a treaty, encroach on the Supreme Court's constitutional prerogative to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law.

Issues

• Whether or not a Filipino citizen may invoke the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Profession between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State to practice law in the Philippines without taking the bar examinations.
• Whether or not the privileges granted under the treaty are subject to the laws and regulations of the contracting State in whose territory the profession is to be exercised.
• Whether or not the treaty could modify the rules governing admission to the practice of law in the Philippines, in light of the Supreme Court's constitutional power to promulgate those rules.

Applicable Provisions

Article III of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Profession provides:

The National of each 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 professions within the territory of the Other.

This shows the treaty was meant to govern Filipinos desiring to practice in Spain and Spaniards desiring to practice in the Philippines, not a Filipino practicing in his own country.

Article I of the same Treaty provides, in its pertinent part:

The nationals of both countries who shall have obtained degrees or diplomas to practice the legal profession in either of the Contracting States, issued by competent national authorities, shall be deemed competent to exercise said profession in the territory of the Other, subject to the laws and regulations of the latter.

This makes the treaty privilege expressly subject to the laws and regulations of the receiving State, which in the Philippines require the bar examinations.

Section 1 of Rule 127, in connection with Sections 2, 9, and 16 thereof, has the force of law and requires that before anyone can practice the legal profession in the Philippines he must first successfully pass the required bar examinations.

Section 13, Article VIII of the Philippine Constitution, as cited in the decision, provides:

The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law.

This reserves to the Court the power over admission to the practice of law, subject only to repeal, alteration, or supplement by Congress.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Garcia cannot invoke the treaty. Under Article III, the treaty governs the national of each country who seeks to practice within the territory of the other. Garcia 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 privileges extended to Spanish nationals desiring to practice in the Philippines.

On the second issue, the Court held that even the treaty's privileges are expressly subject to the laws and regulations of the contracting State in whose territory the profession is to be exercised. Since Section 1 of Rule 127, read with Sections 2, 9, and 16, has the force of law and requires the bar examinations, Garcia must take them.

On the third issue, the Court held that the treaty could not have been intended to modify the laws and regulations governing admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. The Executive Department may not encroach upon the constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law, and the power to repeal, alter, or supplement those rules is reserved only to Congress.

Doctrine

A treaty on academic degrees and the exercise of professions operates reciprocally: it lets Filipinos practice in the foreign State and its nationals practice here. A Filipino citizen seeking to practice law in the Philippines cannot claim its benefits, because he remains subject to the laws of his own country.

Even where a treaty grants a privilege, it is subject to the laws and regulations of the receiving State. In the Philippines, those laws require that one must first successfully pass the required bar examinations before practicing law.

The Executive Department cannot, through a treaty, encroach upon the Supreme Court's constitutional prerogative to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law. Only Congress may repeal, alter, or supplement those rules.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition, and Garcia was not admitted to the Philippine Bar without taking the examinations.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a treaty cannot override the Supreme Court's constitutional power over admission to the Bar, and its privileges are always subject to the laws of the receiving State. Examiners use this case on the treaty versus Constitution question, on the bar examination requirement, and on the reciprocal scope of treaties on the practice of professions.