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.)
bases?
- 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 Laws superseded or modified the American Union or in the District of Columbia2.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).

FACTS ISSUE

- 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,
under a civil gov't. established by the Congress.
- In interpreting and applying the bulk of the written laws of
this jurisdiction, and in rendering its decisions in cases NOT
covered by the letter of the written law, this court relies upon
the theories and precedents of Anglo-American cases, subject
to the limited exception of those instances where the
remnants of the Spanish written law present well-defined civil
law theories and of the few cases where such precedents are
inconsistent with local customs and institutions.
- The jurisprudence of this jurisdiction is based upon the ECL in
its present day form of Anglo-American Common Law to an
almost exclusive extent.
- New York permits conferring privileges on attorneys admitted
to practice in the Phils. similar to those privileges accorded by
the rule of this court.
- Petition granted. Decision is based on the interpretation of
the NY rule; doesn’t establish a precedent with respect to
future applications.
Reasoning
On TERRITORY:a. Comity would exist if we are a territory of the
USb. We are NOT an organized territory incorporated into the
United
States butc. We are NOT a "foreign country" or "another
country" eitherd. Like Puerto Rico, we may not be
incorporated but we are a
territory since the US Congress legislates for us and we have
been granted a form of territorial government, so to that
extent we are a territory according to the US Atty. Gen.
e. It is not believed that the New York court intended the word
"territory" to be limited to the technical meaning of organized
territory or it would have used the more accurate expression.
f. Therefore, We have a basis of comity to satisfy the first
requirement since the full phraseology indicates a SWEEPING
INTENTION to include ALL of the territory of the US.
On COMMON LAW jurisdiction:
(On what principle/s is the present day jurisprudence based?)
g. In most of the States, including New York, codification and
statute law have come to be a very large proportion of the law
of the jurisdiction, the remaining proportion being a system of
case law which has its roots, to a large but not exclusive
degree, in the old English cases.
h. In speaking of a jurisprudence "based on the English
Common Law" it would seem proper to say that the
jurisprudence of a particular jurisdiction Is based upon the
principles of that Common Law if its statute law and its case
law to a very large extent includes the science and application
of law as laid down by the old English cases, as perpetuated
and modified by the American cases.
i. Common Law adopted by decision:i. In the US, the ECL is
blended with American codification and
remnants of the Spanish and French Civil Codes. There a legal
metamorphosis has occurred similar to that which is
transpiring in this jurisdiction today.
ii. New York uses the phrase "based on the English Common
Law" in a general sense
iii. And that such Common Law may become the basis of the
jurisprudence of the courts where practical considerations and
the effect of sovereignty gives round for such a decision.
iv. If in the Philippines, ECL principles as embodied in Anglo-
American jurisprudence are used and applied by the courts to
the extent that Common Law principles are NOT in conflict
with the LOCAL WRITTEN laws, customs, and institutions as
modified by the change of sovereignty and subsequent
legislation, and there is NO OTHER FOREIGN case law system
used to any substantial extent, THEN it is proper to say in the
sense of the New York rule that the "jurisprudence" of the
Philippines is based on the ECL.
j. IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS:i. The extent of the English or
Anglo-Am Common Law here has
not been definitely decided by the SC. But there is a similarity
to the quotations from the American decisions cited with
reference to the ECL.
ii. Alzua & Arnalot vs. Johnson: we apply Anglo-Am
jurisprudence only in "xxx...so far as they are founded on
sound principles applicable to local conditions, and are not in
conflict with existing law; nevertheless, many of the rules,
principles, and doctrines of the Common Law have, to all
intents and purposes, been IMPORTED into this jurisdiction, a
RESULT of the enactment of new laws and the organization of
new institutions by the Congress of the US...xxx"
iii. The Spanish judicial system was abrogated replaced with a
new one modeled after the judicial systems of the US.
Therefore, those Spanish doctrines and principles in conflict
with the new one were abrogated.
iv. US. v. De Guzman: For proper construction and application
of the terms and provisions we borrowed from or modeled
upon Anglo-Am precedents, we review the legislative history
of such enactments.
v. US. v. Abiog and Abiog: The courts are constantly guided by
the doctrines of Common Law. Neither ECL or American
Common Law is in force in this Islands...save only in so far as
they are founded on sound principles applicable to local
conditions and aren't in conflict with existing law."
vi. What we have is a PHILIPPINE COMMON LAW influenced by
the ECL or American Common Law.
vii. A great preponderance of the jurisprudence of our
jurisdiction is based upon Anglo- American case law
precedents-exclusively in applying those statutory laws which
have been enacted since the change of sovereignty and which
conform more or less to the American statutes, and-to a large
extent in applying and expanding the remnants of the Spanish
codes and written laws.
k. PHILIPPINE STATUTE LAWi. The chief codes of Spain that
were extended to us were as
follows: Penal Code, Code of Commerce, Ley Provisional, Code
of Criminal Procedure, and Code of Civil Procedure, Civil Code,
Marriage Law, Mortgage Law, Railway laws, Law of Waters.
ii. There were also special laws having limited application.iii.
The foregoing written laws had acquired the force of statute
law by change of sovereignty.iv. There was no properly called
Case Law of Spain since
Spanish jurisprudence does not recognize the principle of
Stare Decisis.1. Manresa' s discussion of Art. 6 of the Civil
shows how far from a case law system is jurisprudence.
Spanish courts are governed by:
a. 1st, by written lawb. 2nd, by the customs of the place
(derives its force
because it is the acknowledged manner on how things
are done and not jurisprudence)c. 3rd, by judicial decision
(when in practice, these were
considered last; the development of case law was impeded
because the courts were free to disregard any information or
decisions of other courts.)
d. 4th, by general principles of law l. SPANISH STATUTE LAW
i. All portions of political law were abrogated immediately with
the change of sovereignty
ii. All Spanish laws, customs, and rights of property
inconsistent with the Constitution and American principles and
institutions were superseded.
iii. It was as if Congress had enacted new laws for the
Philippines modeled upon those same Spanish statutes.
m. CASES UNDER AMERICAN DERIVED STATUTESi. It appears
that the bulk of present day Statute Law is
derivative from Anglo-American sources; derivative in a sense
of having been COPIED, and in the sense of having been
enacted by Congress or by virtue of its authority.
ii. In all of the cases, Anglo-American decisions and authorities
are used and relied upon to a greater or less degree. Although
in many cases, the use is by way of dictum, nevertheless, the
net result is the building up of a very substantial elaboration of
Anglo-American case law.
n. CASES UNDER SPANISH STATUTESi. We use Anglo-Am cases
in interpreting and applying the
remnants of the Spanish statutes thus showing how
permanent the hold of the Anglo-Am Common Law has on our
jurisprudence.
ii. Anglo-Am case law plays a very great part in amplifying the
law on those subjects, which are still governed by the
remaining portions of the Spanish statutes, as exhibited in the
groups of cases cited in the footnotes.
iii. Anglo-Am case law has entered practically every field of law
and in the large majority of such subjects has formed the sole
basis for the guidance of the Court in developing
jurisprudence.
iv. The result is that we've developed a Phil. Common Law
which is based almost exclusively, except in cases where
conflicting with local customs and institutions, upon Anglo-
Am Common Law.
o. COLLATERAL INFLUENCESi. There are no digests of Spanish
decisions to aid the study of
Bench and Bar vs. The abundance of
digests/reports/textbooks on English/Am. courts.ii. There is a
prolific use of Anglo-Am authorities in the decisions of the
court, plus, the available sources for study
and reference on legal theories are mostly Anglo-Amiii.
Therefore, there has been developed and will continue a
common law in our jurisprudence (i.e. Phil Common Law)
based upon the ECL in its present day form of an Anglo-Am CL,
which is effective in all of the subjects of law in this
jurisdiction, in so far as it does not conflict with the express
language of the written law (where the remnants of the
Spanish written law present well-defined civil law theories)
or with the local customs and institution.
TAÑADA V. TUVERA
No. L-63915
Facts: In procuring the enforcement of public duty, a petition
was sought by Tañada, Sarmiento, and Movement of
Attorneys for Brotherhood Integrity and Nationalism,
Inc (MABINI) seeking a writ of mandamus to compel
respondent public officials to publish, and or cause the
publication in the Official Gazette of various
presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general
orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of
implementation and administrative orders. There is a
need for Publication of Laws to strengthen its binding
force and effect: giving access to legislative records,
giving awareness to the public of the law promulgated.
The Official Gazette, however, does not contain
publications of administrative and executive orders
that affect only a particular class of persons. The
Official Gazette, as mandated by law, presents all
presidential issuances “of a public nature” or “of
general applicability.” Also, Article 2 of the Civil Code
expressly recognized that the rule as to laws takes
effect after 15 days unless it is otherwise (for some do
specify the date of effectivity) following the completion
of the publication in the Official Gazette. However, the
decree has been misread by many; for it has no
juridical force, but a mere legislative enactment of RA
386.
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
citizens.
Held: Respondents were granted petition to publish all
unpublished issuances in the Official Gazette, serving
as a response to the maxim “ignorance as an excuse for
noncompliance.” The effectivity of laws shall follow the
notice to parties concerned, for such is a public right.
There will be no retroactive effect for laws with dates
which applied the 15-day rule of publication in the
Official Gazette.
Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. v. Torres
G.R. No. 101279 August 6, 1992
Griño-Aquino, J.
FACTS:
As a result of published stories regarding the abuses suffered
by Filipino housemaids employed in Hong
Kong, then DOLE Secretary Ruben Torres issued Department
Order No. 16, Series of 1991, temporarily suspending
the recruitment by private employment agencies of Filipino
domestic helpers going to Hong Kong. The DOLE itself,
through the POEA took over the business of deploying such
Hong Kong-bound workers. The POEA Administrator
also issued Memorandum Circular No. 37, Series of 1991, on
the processing of employment contracts of domestic
workers for Hong Kong.
PASEI filed a petition for prohibition to annul the
aforementioned DOLE and POEA circulars and to prohibit their
implementation on the grounds that DOLE and POEA acted
with grave abuse of discretion and/or in excess of their
rule-making authority in issuing said circulars; that the assailed
DOLE and POEA circulars are contrary to the
Constitution, are unreasonable, unfair and oppressive; and
that the requirements of publication and filing with the
Office of the National Administrative Register were not
complied with.
HELD:
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
activities. It reads: “The Secretary of Labor shall have
the power to restrict and regulate the recruitment and
placement activities of all agencies within the coverage of this
title [Regulation of Recruitment and Placement Activities] and
is hereby authorized to issue orders and promulgate
rules and regulations to carry out the objectives and
implement the provisions of this title.” On the other hand, the
scope of the regulatory authority of the POEA, which was
created by Executive Order No. 797 to take over the
functions of the Overseas Employment Development
Board, the National Seamen Board, and the overseas
employment functions of the Bureau of Employment Services,
is broad and far-ranging for among the functions
inherited by the POEA from the defunct Bureau of
Employment Services was the power and duty to establish and
maintain a registration and/or licensing system to regulate
private sector participation in the recruitment and
placement of workers, locally and overseas; it assumed from
the defunct Overseas Employment Development Board
the power and duty to recruit and place workers for overseas
employment of Filipino contract workers on a
government to government arrangement and in such other
sectors as policy may dictate; and from the National
Seamen Board, the POEA took over to regulate and supervise
the activities of agents or representatives of shipping
companies in the hiring of seamen for overseas employment;
and secure the best possible terms of employment for
contract seamen workers and secure compliance therewith.
Said administrative issuances merely restricted the scope or
area of PASEI’s business operations by
excluding therefrom recruitment and deployment of domestic
helpers for Hong Kong till after the establishment of
the “mechanisms” that will enhance the protection of Filipino
domestic helpers going to Hong Kong. In fine, other
than the recruitment and deployment of Filipino domestic
helpers for Hong Kong, PASEI may still deploy other
class of Filipino workers either for Hong Kong and other
countries and all other classes of Filipino workers for other
countries. Said administrative issuances, are intended to
curtail, if not to end, rampant violations of the rule against
excessive collections of placement and documentation fees,
travel fees and other charges committed by private
employment agencies recruiting and deploying domestic
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.
Nevertheless, they are legally invalid, defective and
unenforceable for lack of power publication and filing
in the Office of the National Administrative Register. As
announced in Tañada vs. Tuvera,
“All statutes, including those of local application and private
laws, shall be published as a
condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days
after publication unless a different
effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.
Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive
orders promulgated by the President in
the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are
validly delegated by the legislature or, at
present, directly conferred by the Constitution: Administrative
rules and regulations must also be
published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing
law pursuant to a valid delegation.
Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature,
that is, regulating only the personnel
of the administrative agency and the public, need not be
published. Neither is publication required of
the so-called letter of instructions issued by the administrative
superiors concerning the rules or
guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the
performance of their duties.”