In re Garcia

A Filipino citizen who obtained a law degree and professional license in Spain cannot use the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Philippines and Spain to secure admission to the Philippine Bar without examination, because the treaty benefits only Spanish nationals practicing in the Philippines, its privileges are subject to Philippine bar admission rules, and the treaty cannot encroach upon the Supreme Court’s constitutional prerogative to require bar examinations.

Arturo E. Garcia, a Filipino citizen, completed secondary studies in Spain, was admitted to the Central University of Madrid, and graduated with the degree of “Licenciado en Derecho.” Thereafter he was authorized to practice law in Spain. Invoking the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State, he filed a verified petition directly with the Supreme Court, praying that he be allowed to practice law in the Philippines without submitting to the bar examinations required under Philippine law.

• Petitioner Arturo E. Garcia averred that he was a Filipino citizen, born in Bacolor City, Province of Negros Occidental, of Filipino parentage.
• He completed the “Bachillerato Superior” in Spain and, after being qualified by the “Instituto de Cervantes,” was admitted to the Central University of Madrid, where he finished the law course and graduated as “Licenciado en Derecho.”
• Following his graduation, he was permitted to practice the law profession in Spain.
• He claimed that under the provisions of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish State, he was entitled to practice law in the Philippines without submitting to the required bar examinations.

• Treaty Entitlement: Petitioner argued that because he had obtained a law degree and the right to practice in Spain, the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Philippines and Spain granted him the right to practice law in the Philippines without taking the Philippine bar examinations.

• Applicability of Treaty to Filipino Citizens: Whether the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Philippines and Spain applies to a Filipino citizen seeking to practice the legal profession in the Philippines, as opposed to a Spanish national seeking to practice in the Philippines.
• Subjection to Local Bar Admission Laws: Whether the privileges conferred by the Treaty override the Philippine law and rules requiring the passing of bar examinations before admission to the practice of law.
• Treaty vs. Judicial Rule-Making Power: Whether the Treaty can modify or supplant the Supreme Court’s constitutional power to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law.

• Applicability of Treaty to Filipino Citizens: The Treaty did not apply to petitioner. Article XI of the Treaty referred to “Nationals of each of the two countries who shall have obtained recognition of the validity of their academic degrees … can practice their professions within the territory of the Other.” This language clearly showed the Treaty was intended to govern Filipino citizens desiring to practice in Spain, and Spanish citizens desiring to practice in the Philippines. Petitioner, being a Filipino citizen seeking to practice in his own country, was not entitled to the privileges extended to Spanish nationals.
• Subjection to Local Bar Admission Laws: The Treaty expressly made its privileges subject to the host state’s laws and regulations. Article I provided that degree holders “shall be deemed competent to exercise said professions in the territory of the Other, subject to the laws and regulations of the latter.” Section 1 of Rule 127, in relation to Sections 2, 9, and 16 thereof, had the force of law and required that before anyone could practice law in the Philippines, they must first successfully pass the bar examinations. The Treaty could not exempt petitioner from this requirement.
• Treaty vs. Judicial Rule-Making Power: The Treaty could not have been intended to modify the rules governing admission to the Philippine Bar. The Executive Department, in concluding the Treaty, could not encroach upon the constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law. The power to repeal, alter, or supplement such rules was reserved to Congress, not to the treaty-making power.

• Treaty Interpretation — Nationals in Own Country: A bilateral treaty granting reciprocal professional privileges to nationals of each contracting state “within the territory of the Other” applies only when a national of one state seeks to practice in the other state. It does not grant a citizen any privilege to practice in his or her own country.
• Treaty Subject to Local Laws: Even when a treaty confers a right to exercise a profession in the host state, that right is expressly “subject to the laws and regulations of the latter.” Where local law requires the passing of a bar examination, the treaty provides no exemption from that requirement. Compliance with local admission regulations is a condition precedent to the exercise of the treaty right.
• Exclusive Judicial Prerogative over Bar Admission: The constitutional grant to the Supreme Court of the power to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law is exclusive. The Executive Department cannot, through treaty negotiations, modify or override those rules. The power to repeal, alter, or supplement the rules of court governing bar admission belongs to Congress. Thus, a treaty cannot be interpreted to amend bar admission requirements without violating the separation of powers.

• “The Nationals 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 …” — Article XI of the Treaty, underscoring that the privilege is reserved for nationals of one country practicing in the other.
• “The nationals of both countries who shall have obtained degree or diplomas to practice the liberal professions in either of the Contracting States, issued by competent national authorities, shall be deemed competent to exercise said professions in the territory of the Other, subject to the laws and regulations of the latter …” — Article I of the Treaty, making the right expressly conditional on compliance with local laws, including bar examination requirements.
• “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.” — The Court’s affirmation of the separation of powers in the context of bar admission.

• N/A (the resolution does not cite judicial precedents; it relies on the text of the Treaty, the Rules of Court, and the Constitution).

• Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions, Article I — Provided that degree holders would be deemed competent to practice their professions in the other state “subject to the laws and regulations of the latter.” Applied to require compliance with the Philippine bar examination rules.
• Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions, Article XI — Referred to “Nationals … within the territory of the Other,” confining the treaty’s professional privileges to Spanish nationals in the Philippines and excluding Filipino citizens practicing in their own country.
• Section 1, Rule 127, in relation to Sections 2, 9, and 16, Rules of Court — These rules, having the force of law, required the successful passing of the bar examinations as a prerequisite to admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.
• Section 13, Article VIII, 1935 Philippine Constitution — Vested in the Supreme Court the exclusive power to promulgate rules concerning admission to the practice of law, which the Executive Department could not override through the treaty-making power.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, De Leon, and Natividad, JJ., concurred. Bautista Angelo, J., was on leave and took no part; Concepcion, J., took no part.

N/A (no dissenting opinions were recorded).