G.R. No. L-17422, November 29, 1920
In re Application of Max Shoop for Admission to the Practice of Law

FACTS:
Max Shoop applied for admission to the Philippine Bar without examination under the Court’s rules. He had been admitted to practice and had practiced for over five years in the highest court of the State of New York. The applicable rule required that the applicant’s home jurisdiction (New York) must, by comity, confer the same privilege of admission without examination to attorneys admitted to practice in the Philippine Islands. The New York rule allowed admission without examination for persons who had practiced for five years in: (1) the highest court of any other “state or territory of the American Union,” or (2) in “another country whose jurisprudence is based on the principles of the English Common Law.” The Court noted an informal report that one member of the Philippine Bar had been admitted in New York under this rule, while another had been refused, creating an apparent conflict.

ISSUE:
Whether, under the New York rule, a basis of comity exists such that the Philippine Islands is considered either a “territory of the American Union” or “another country whose jurisprudence is based on the principles of the English Common Law,” thereby satisfying the requirement for Shoop’s admission without examination.

RULING:
The Supreme Court granted the application and admitted Max Shoop to the practice of law without examination. The Court held that a sufficient basis for comity existed under both paragraphs of the New York rule.

1. The Philippine Islands as a “Territory of the American Union”: The Court reasoned that while the Philippines was not an “incorporated” territory of the United States, it was nevertheless a territory under American sovereignty, distinct from a “foreign country.” The phrase “state or territory of the American Union” in the New York rule was interpreted in its broad, general sense to include all territory under the jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore, the Philippines qualified under the first paragraph of the New York rule.

2. The Philippine Islands as a Common Law Jurisdiction: Assuming arguendo that the Philippines was not a “territory,” it would then be considered “another country” under the second paragraph. The Court conducted an extensive review of its own jurisprudence and concluded that the present legal system of the Philippines, while retaining the Civil Law as its foundation in many substantive areas, had extensively adopted and was fundamentally influenced by the principles, methods of reasoning, and doctrines of the English Common Law, particularly in procedural, commercial, and remedial matters. The Court held that the Philippine jurisprudence was sufficiently “based on the principles of the English Common Law” to satisfy the New York rule.

Consequently, the reciprocity requirement for comity was deemed satisfied, and the Court exercised its discretion to admit the applicant.