Facts:
In re Application of Max Shoop for Admission to Practice Law, 41 Phil. 213, November 29, 1920, the Supreme Court, Malcolm, J., writing for the Court; Mapa, C.J., Johnson, Araullo, Street, Avancena and Villamor, JJ., concurring. Max Shoop (applicant) petitioned the Supreme Court for admission to the practice of law in the Philippine Islands under paragraph four of the Rules for the Examination of Candidates for Admission to the Practice of Law, effective July 1, 1920. The supporting papers showed that Shoop had been admitted to practice and had practiced for more than five years in the highest court of the State of New York.Paragraph four of the Philippine rule authorized, in the court’s discretion, admission without examination of applicants who had been admitted and practiced at least five years in the highest court of any State or territory of the United States or in a foreign country whose jurisprudence is based on the English Common Law, but only where the other jurisdiction by comity granted similar privileges to attorneys admitted in the Philippine Islands. The New York Appellate Division’s rule (as reported informally to the Philippine court) likewise permitted admission without examination in similar categories: (1) persons admitted and who had practiced five years as members of the bar in the highest law court of any other State or territory of the American Union or the District of Columbia; and (2) persons admitted and who had practiced five years in another country whose jurisprudence is based on the principles of the English Common Law. Informal reports indicated New York had once admitted a member of the Philippine bar without examination and had later refused another application; no authoritative New York construction was before the Philippine court.
Faced with that uncertainty, the Court proceeded to determine whether the prerequisites of the New York rule were satisfied in Shoop’s case: first, whether the Philippine Islands constituted a "State or territory of the American Union" within the meaning of New York’s rule; and second, alternatively, whether the jurisprudence of the Philippine Islands was based upon the principles of the English Common Law so as to bring the Islands within paragraph two of the New York rule. The Court analyzed American decisions and opinions (including Dorr v. United States; The Diamond Rings; De Lima v. Bidwell) and an Attorney-General opinion, and undertook an extensive survey of Philippine statutory law and the Philippine Reports to measure the influence of Anglo‑American precedent versus Spanish statutory and customary sources.
The Court concluded (1) that the Philippine Islands are an unorganized territory of the United States under a civil government established by Congress, and (2) that, in practice, Philippine jurisprudence is based to an almost exclusive extent upon the English Common Law in its Anglo‑American form, as shown by the prevalence of Anglo‑American citations and by the necessity of resort to Anglo‑American precedents in construing American‑derived statutes and interpreting many remnants of Spanish law. On that basis—and because Shoop had the requisite fi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the Philippine Islands a "state or territory of the American Union" within the meaning of the New York rule so as to satisfy its comity requirement for reciprocal admission without examination?
- Alternatively, is the jurisprudence of the Philippine Islands "based on the principles of the English Common Law" so as to qualify under the New York rule’s second category?
- May Max Shoop be admitted without examination under paragraph four of the Rules for the Examination of Cand...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)