In re Shoop
is not an ‘organized
29 Nov 1920
Ponente: Malcolm
FACTS:
 Max Shoop applied for admission to practice law in the Phil. Islands
 Shoop has practiced for more than 5 years in the highest court of
New York
 His application is based on paragraph 4 of the Rules of the
Examination of Candidates for Admission to the Practice of Law,
effective 1 July 1920
“Applicants for admission who have been admitted to practice in the
Supreme Court of the United States in any circuit court of appeal or district
court, therein, or in the highest court of any State or territory of the United
States, which State or territory by comity confers the same privilege on
attorneys admitted to practice in the Philippine Islands, and who can show by
satisfactory affidavits that they have practiced at least 5 years in any of said
courts, may, in the discretion of the court, be admitted without examination.”
ISSUES:
 WON UNDER THE NEW YORK RULE AS IT EXISTS THE
PRINCIPLE OF COMITY IS ESTABLISHED
HELD: Yes. The New York rule, given a reasonable interpretation, permits
conferring privileges on attorneys admitted to practice in the Phil Islands
similar to those privileges accorded by the rule of this court.
 WON the Philippines is a State or territory of the United
States (WON comity exists by virtue of par. 1)
HELD: The Phil. Islands is an unorganized territory of the US, under a civil
government established by the Congress.
 Under par 1 of the New York rule , practice for 5 years in the
highest court in any “State or territory of the American Union”
is the basic qualification
 The Phils.
territory’ incorporated in the US under
the constitution. The Phils. is also not
a ‘foreign country.’ The Phils. is not
‘another country.’
 WON Philippine jurisprudence is based
on the principles of the English
Common Law (WON comity exists by
virtue of par 2)
HELD: (yes)
Jurisprudence of this jurisdiction is based upon the
English Common Law in its present day form of
Anglo-American Common Law to an almost
exclusive content. In interpreting and applying the
bulk of 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
except when inconsistent with local customs and
institutions
 New York Court in referring to a
jurisprudence based on the English Common
Law uses the phrase in a general sense
 The Jurisprudence of the Phil Islands is based
on the English Common Law since its
principles are embodied in Anglo-American
jurisprudence as used and applied by the
courts when they are not in conflict with the
local written laws, customs, and institutions
as modified by the change of sovereignty
and subsequent legislation
 Common Law is used in ascertaining the true
meaning and scope of the legislation
enacted in the Phil Islands since they passed
under American sovereignty
 General rule of statutory construction is to
take judicial notice of the origin and history
of statutes and of the facts which affect their
derivation, validity and operation.
  All Spanish laws, customs, and rights of property inconsistent with the
Constitution and American principles were superseded
 The court has cited and quoted from Anglo-American cases and
authorities in its decisions in an increasing degree over the past 20
years
 American citations are over ten times as numerous as Spanish
citations

RULING:
Petition is granted and Shoop is admitted to the practice of law in the Phil.
Islands. The decision is based on the Court’s interpretation of the New York
rule, and does not establish a precedent with respect to future applications.