An application was made by Max Shoop for admission to practice law in the Philippine Islands under Par.

4 of the Rules for the Examination of Candidates for Admission to the Practice of Law, effective July 1,
1920.

*Rule*

"Applicants for admission who have been admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of the United
States or in any circuit court of appeals or district court, therein, or in the highest court of any State or
territory of the United States, whch 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 five years in any of said courts, may, in the discretion of the court, be admitted
without examination."

The rule requires that NY State by comity confer privilege of admission without examination under
similar circumstances to attorneys admitted to practice in the Philippine islands. The rule of the New
York court permits admission without examination, in the discretion of the Apellate Division, in several
cases, among which are the following:

COMITY - a principle that "

"Any person admitted to practice and who has practiced five years in another country whose
jurisprudence is based on the principles of the English Common Law."

Ths court is advised informally that under this rule one member of the bar of the Philippine Islands has
been admitted to practice, without examination, in the State of New York, and one member of the same
bar has been refused such admission, the latter being the more recent case. The rulings of the New York
court have not been brought to the attention of this court authoritatively, but assuming that reports of
such rulings by the New York court are true in view of teh apparent conflict, it seems proper to enter
upon the consideration of whether or not under the New York rule as it exists the principle of comity is
established. It must be observed that under the rules of both jurisdictions, admission in any particular
case is not necessarily conclusive as to the general principles established by the rules.

"What is "jurisprudence based on the principles of the English Common Law?"

The New York State adopted the written law of England as a constatnly imprving science rather than as
an art; as a sustem of logic, rather than as a code of rules, - that is, that the fundamental principles and
modes of reasoning and the substance of the rules of the Common Law are adopted as illustrated by the
reasons on which they are based rather than the mere words in which they are expressed.

In most of the States, including New York, codification adn statue law have come to be a very large
proprtion of the law of the jurisdiction, the remaining proportion being a system of case law which has
its roots, to a large but not an excusive degree, in the old English cases. In fact, present day
commentators refer to American jurisprudence or Anglo-American jurisprudence as distinguised from
the English Common Law.
Accordingly, in speaking of a jurisprudence which is "based on the English Common Law." for present
purposes at least, it would seem proper to say that the jurisprudence of a particular jurisdiction is based
upon the principles of that Common Law, if, as a matter of fact, its statue 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.

Jurisprudence based on the English Common Law - the jurisprudence of a particular jurisdiction that is
based on the the principles of English Common Law and that its statute law and 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).

Common Law adopted by Decision

Common law

- concept of a growing and ever-changing system of legal principles and theories

- due to codification, there are no jurisdictions today with a pure English Common Law, with the
exception of England.

United States

- English Common Law -> mixture of American codification and vestiges of Spanish and French CIvil
Codes

- Lousiana -> adopted the Common Law by decision.

Cases:

Wagner v. Kenner: The Court rejected the straight civil code rule and adopted the custom of New
Orleans

The superior court of the late territory of Orleans very early held that although the laws of Spain were
not abrogated by the taking possession of the country by the United States, yet from that event the
commercial law of the Union became the commercial law of New Orleans; and this court has frequently
recognized the correctness of these early decisions, principally in bills of exchange, promissory notes
and insurance. (Wagner vs. Kenner, 2 Rob. [La.], 120.)

Xiques v. Bujac: Reiterated the admission of the doctrines laid down in Common Lawcourts with some
modification resulting from our different systems of law.

"I must add that the general doctrine laid down in Common Law courts has been admitted by our courts
with some modification resulting from our different systems of law" (7 La. Ann., 498, p. 504)" (8 Rob.
[La.], 545).

State v. McCoy: Certain common law rules were adopted by Lousiana by legislation
"We concur with the counsel in believing that the legislature in adopting the Common Law rules of
proceeding, method of trial, etc., adopted the system as it existed in 1805, modified, explained and
perfected by statutory enactment, so far as those enactments are not found to be inconsistent with the
peculiar character and genius of our government and institution" (8 Rob. [La.], 545).

Conclusion:

(1) That the New York court in referring to a jurisdiction whose jurisprudence is based on the English
Common Law, uses the phrase in a general sense; and

(2) That such Common Law may become the basis of the jurisprudence by decision of the courts where
practical considerations and the effect of sovereignty gives ground for such a decision.

Issue: WON it is proper to say in the sense of the New York rule that the 'jurisprudence of the
Philippine Islands is based on the English Common Law with regard to the use and application of "the
courts to the extent that such 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" (In Re: Shoop).

IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

- There are cases in the Philippines which were decided similarly to those that were found in Lousiana as
regards their reference to English Common Law.

Alzua and Amalot v. Johnson -