You are on page 1of 7

IN RE SHOOP - The said rule requires that:New York State by comity confers

the privilege of admission without examination under similar

MALCOLM; November 29, 1920 circumstances to attorneys admitted to practice in the
Philippine Islands. (Aside from comity, the satisfactory
Points to consider: affidavits of applicants must show they have practiced at least
5 years in any (district or circuit or highest) court of the US or
1. Difference between Civil Law and Common Law
territory of it. But admission is still in the discretion of the
2. Distinguish strains of common law: What are the court.)
- The rule of New York court, on the other hand, permits
3. How did the Court arrive at the conclusion that there is admission without examination in the discretion of the
Anglo- Appellate

American tradition? Division in several cases:1. Provided that the applicant also
practiced 5 years as a member of
4. What system is in place?
the bar in the highest law court in any other state or territory
5. References to American jurisprudence of

6. Laws superseded or modified the American Union or in the District of Columbia2. The
applicant practiced 5 years in another country whose
7. Identify what is that important question the Court needed jurisprudence is based on the principles of the English
to Common

resolve and how it helped solve the Shoop case. Law (ECL).


- Max Shoop is applying for admission to practice law in the WON under the New York rule as it exists the principle of
Philippines under Par. 4 of the Rules for the Examination of comity is established
Candidates for Admission to the Practice of Law. It was shown
in his application that he was practicing for more than 5 years HELD
in the highest court of the State of New York.
- The Philippines is an UNORGANIZED TERRITORY of the US, territory since the US Congress legislates for us and we have
under a civil gov't. established by the Congress. been granted a form of territorial government, so to that
extent we are a territory according to the US Atty. Gen.
- In interpreting and applying the bulk of the written laws of
this jurisdiction, and in rendering its decisions in cases NOT e. It is not believed that the New York court intended the word
covered by the letter of the written law, this court relies upon "territory" to be limited to the technical meaning of organized
the theories and precedents of Anglo-American cases, subject territory or it would have used the more accurate expression.
to the limited exception of those instances where the
remnants of the Spanish written law present well-defined civil f. Therefore, We have a basis of comity to satisfy the first
law theories and of the few cases where such precedents are requirement since the full phraseology indicates a SWEEPING
inconsistent with local customs and institutions. INTENTION to include ALL of the territory of the US.

- The jurisprudence of this jurisdiction is based upon the ECL in On COMMON LAW jurisdiction:
its present day form of Anglo-American Common Law to an
almost exclusive extent. (On what principle/s is the present day jurisprudence based?)

- New York permits conferring privileges on attorneys admitted g. In most of the States, including New York, codification and
to practice in the Phils. similar to those privileges accorded by statute law have come to be a very large proportion of the law
the rule of this court. of the jurisdiction, the remaining proportion being a system of
case law which has its roots, to a large but not exclusive
- Petition granted. Decision is based on the interpretation of degree, in the old English cases.
the NY rule; doesn’t establish a precedent with respect to
future applications. h. In speaking of a jurisprudence "based on the English
Common Law" it would seem proper to say that the
Reasoning jurisprudence of a particular jurisdiction Is based upon the
principles of that Common Law if its statute law and its case
On TERRITORY:a. Comity would exist if we are a territory of the law to a very large extent includes the science and application
USb. We are NOT an organized territory incorporated into the of law as laid down by the old English cases, as perpetuated
United and modified by the American cases.

States butc. We are NOT a "foreign country" or "another i. Common Law adopted by decision:i. In the US, the ECL is
country" eitherd. Like Puerto Rico, we may not be blended with American codification and
incorporated but we are a
remnants of the Spanish and French Civil Codes. There a legal intents and purposes, been IMPORTED into this jurisdiction, a
metamorphosis has occurred similar to that which is RESULT of the enactment of new laws and the organization of
transpiring in this jurisdiction today. new institutions by the Congress of the"

ii. New York uses the phrase "based on the English Common iii. The Spanish judicial system was abrogated replaced with a
Law" in a general sense new one modeled after the judicial systems of the US.
Therefore, those Spanish doctrines and principles in conflict
iii. And that such Common Law may become the basis of the with the new one were abrogated.
jurisprudence of the courts where practical considerations and
the effect of sovereignty gives round for such a decision. iv. US. v. De Guzman: For proper construction and application
of the terms and provisions we borrowed from or modeled
iv. If in the Philippines, ECL principles as embodied in Anglo- upon Anglo-Am precedents, we review the legislative history
American jurisprudence are used and applied by the courts to of such enactments.
the extent that Common Law principles are NOT in conflict
with the LOCAL WRITTEN laws, customs, and institutions as v. US. v. Abiog and Abiog: The courts are constantly guided by
modified by the change of sovereignty and subsequent the doctrines of Common Law. Neither ECL or American
legislation, and there is NO OTHER FOREIGN case law system Common Law is in force in this only in so far as
used to any substantial extent, THEN it is proper to say in the they are founded on sound principles applicable to local
sense of the New York rule that the "jurisprudence" of the conditions and aren't in conflict with existing law."
Philippines is based on the ECL.
vi. What we have is a PHILIPPINE COMMON LAW influenced by
j. IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS:i. The extent of the English or the ECL or American Common Law.
Anglo-Am Common Law here has
vii. A great preponderance of the jurisprudence of our
not been definitely decided by the SC. But there is a similarity jurisdiction is based upon Anglo- American case law
to the quotations from the American decisions cited with precedents-exclusively in applying those statutory laws which
reference to the ECL. have been enacted since the change of sovereignty and which
conform more or less to the American statutes, and-to a large
ii. Alzua & Arnalot vs. Johnson: we apply Anglo-Am extent in applying and expanding the remnants of the Spanish
jurisprudence only in " far as they are founded on codes and written laws.
sound principles applicable to local conditions, and are not in
conflict with existing law; nevertheless, many of the rules, k. PHILIPPINE STATUTE LAWi. The chief codes of Spain that
principles, and doctrines of the Common Law have, to all were extended to us were as
follows: Penal Code, Code of Commerce, Ley Provisional, Code ii. All Spanish laws, customs, and rights of property
of Criminal Procedure, and Code of Civil Procedure, Civil Code, inconsistent with the Constitution and American principles and
Marriage Law, Mortgage Law, Railway laws, Law of Waters. institutions were superseded.

ii. There were also special laws having limited application.iii. iii. It was as if Congress had enacted new laws for the
The foregoing written laws had acquired the force of statute Philippines modeled upon those same Spanish statutes.

law by change of sovereignty.iv. There was no properly called m. CASES UNDER AMERICAN DERIVED STATUTESi. It appears
Case Law of Spain since that the bulk of present day Statute Law is

Spanish jurisprudence does not recognize the principle of derivative from Anglo-American sources; derivative in a sense
Stare Decisis.1. Manresa' s discussion of Art. 6 of the Civil of having been COPIED, and in the sense of having been
shows how far from a case law system is jurisprudence. enacted by Congress or by virtue of its authority.
Spanish courts are governed by:
ii. In all of the cases, Anglo-American decisions and authorities
a. 1st, by written lawb. 2nd, by the customs of the place are used and relied upon to a greater or less degree. Although
(derives its force in many cases, the use is by way of dictum, nevertheless, the
net result is the building up of a very substantial elaboration of
because it is the acknowledged manner on how things Anglo-American case law.

are done and not jurisprudence)c. 3rd, by judicial decision n. CASES UNDER SPANISH STATUTESi. We use Anglo-Am cases
(when in practice, these were in interpreting and applying the

considered last; the development of case law was impeded remnants of the Spanish statutes thus showing how
because the courts were free to disregard any information or permanent the hold of the Anglo-Am Common Law has on our
decisions of other courts.) jurisprudence.

d. 4th, by general principles of law l. SPANISH STATUTE LAW ii. Anglo-Am case law plays a very great part in amplifying the
law on those subjects, which are still governed by the
i. All portions of political law were abrogated immediately with remaining portions of the Spanish statutes, as exhibited in the
the change of sovereignty groups of cases cited in the footnotes.
iii. Anglo-Am case law has entered practically every field of law No. L-63915
and in the large majority of such subjects has formed the sole
basis for the guidance of the Court in developing Facts: In procuring the enforcement of public duty, a petition
jurisprudence. was sought by Tañada, Sarmiento, and Movement of
Attorneys for Brotherhood Integrity and Nationalism,
iv. The result is that we've developed a Phil. Common Law Inc (MABINI) seeking a writ of mandamus to compel
which is based almost exclusively, except in cases where respondent public officials to publish, and or cause the
conflicting with local customs and institutions, upon Anglo- publication in the Official Gazette of various
Am Common Law. presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general
orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of
o. COLLATERAL INFLUENCESi. There are no digests of Spanish implementation and administrative orders. There is a
decisions to aid the study of need for Publication of Laws to strengthen its binding
force and effect: giving access to legislative records,
Bench and Bar vs. The abundance of
giving awareness to the public of the law promulgated.
digests/reports/textbooks on English/Am. courts.ii. There is a The Official Gazette, however, does not contain
prolific use of Anglo-Am authorities in the decisions of the publications of administrative and executive orders
court, plus, the available sources for study that affect only a particular class of persons. The
Official Gazette, as mandated by law, presents all
and reference on legal theories are mostly Anglo-Amiii. presidential issuances “of a public nature” or “of
Therefore, there has been developed and will continue a general applicability.” Also, Article 2 of the Civil Code
common law in our jurisprudence (i.e. Phil Common Law) expressly recognized that the rule as to laws takes
based upon the ECL in its present day form of an Anglo-Am CL, effect after 15 days unless it is otherwise (for some do
which is effective in all of the subjects of law in this specify the date of effectivity) following the completion
jurisdiction, in so far as it does not conflict with the express of the publication in the Official Gazette. However, the
language of the written law (where the remnants of the decree has been misread by many; for it has no
Spanish written law present well-defined civil law theories) juridical force, but a mere legislative enactment of RA
or with the local customs and institution.
Issue: WON to provide publications of the law elsewhere,
aside from the Official Gazette, as it would be essential
to the effectivity of the said legislative or executive act
that regulates the acts and conduct of people as implementation on the grounds that DOLE and POEA acted
citizens. with grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of their
rule-making authority in issuing said circulars; that the assailed
Held: Respondents were granted petition to publish all DOLE and POEA circulars are contrary to the
unpublished issuances in the Official Gazette, serving Constitution, are unreasonable, unfair and oppressive; and
as a response to the maxim “ignorance as an excuse for that the requirements of publication and filing with the
noncompliance.” The effectivity of laws shall follow the Office of the National Administrative Register were not
notice to parties concerned, for such is a public right. complied with.
There will be no retroactive effect for laws with dates
which applied the 15-day rule of publication in the HELD:
Official Gazette. The second and first grounds are unmeritorious. Article 36 of
the Labor Code grants the Labor Secretary
the power to restrict and regulate recruitment and placement
Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Torres activities. It reads: “The Secretary of Labor shall have
G.R. No. 101279 August 6, 1992 the power to restrict and regulate the recruitment and
Griño-Aquino, J. placement activities of all agencies within the coverage of this
title [Regulation of Recruitment and Placement Activities] and
FACTS: is hereby authorized to issue orders and promulgate
As a result of published stories regarding the abuses suffered rules and regulations to carry out the objectives and
by Filipino housemaids employed in Hong implement the provisions of this title.” On the other hand, the
Kong, then DOLE Secretary Ruben Torres issued Department scope of the regulatory authority of the POEA, which was
Order No. 16, Series of 1991, temporarily suspending created by Executive Order No. 797 to take over the
the recruitment by private employment agencies of Filipino functions of the Overseas Employment Development
domestic helpers going to Hong Kong. The DOLE itself, Board, the National Seamen Board, and the overseas
through the POEA took over the business of deploying such employment functions of the Bureau of Employment Services,
Hong Kong-bound workers. The POEA Administrator is broad and far-ranging for among the functions
also issued Memorandum Circular No. 37, Series of 1991, on inherited by the POEA from the defunct Bureau of
the processing of employment contracts of domestic Employment Services was the power and duty to establish and
workers for Hong Kong. maintain a registration and/or licensing system to regulate
PASEI filed a petition for prohibition to annul the private sector participation in the recruitment and
aforementioned DOLE and POEA circulars and to prohibit their
placement of workers, locally and overseas; it assumed from Nevertheless, they are legally invalid, defective and
the defunct Overseas Employment Development Board unenforceable for lack of power publication and filing
the power and duty to recruit and place workers for overseas in the Office of the National Administrative Register. As
employment of Filipino contract workers on a announced in Tañada vs. Tuvera,
government to government arrangement and in such other
sectors as policy may dictate; and from the National “All statutes, including those of local application and private
Seamen Board, the POEA took over to regulate and supervise laws, shall be published as a
the activities of agents or representatives of shipping condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days
companies in the hiring of seamen for overseas employment; after publication unless a different
and secure the best possible terms of employment for effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.
contract seamen workers and secure compliance therewith. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive
Said administrative issuances merely restricted the scope or orders promulgated by the President in
area of PASEI’s business operations by the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are
excluding therefrom recruitment and deployment of domestic validly delegated by the legislature or, at
helpers for Hong Kong till after the establishment of present, directly conferred by the Constitution: Administrative
the “mechanisms” that will enhance the protection of Filipino rules and regulations must also be
domestic helpers going to Hong Kong. In fine, other published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing
than the recruitment and deployment of Filipino domestic law pursuant to a valid delegation.
helpers for Hong Kong, PASEI may still deploy other Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature,
class of Filipino workers either for Hong Kong and other that is, regulating only the personnel
countries and all other classes of Filipino workers for other of the administrative agency and the public, need not be
countries. Said administrative issuances, are intended to published. Neither is publication required of
curtail, if not to end, rampant violations of the rule against the so-called letter of instructions issued by the administrative
excessive collections of placement and documentation fees, superiors concerning the rules or
travel fees and other charges committed by private guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the
employment agencies recruiting and deploying domestic performance of their duties.”
helpers to Hong Kong. They are reasonable, valid and
justified under the general welfare clause of the Constitution,
since the recruitment and deployment business, as it is
conducted today, is affected with public interest.