EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2529 December 31, 1949J. A. SISON, petitioner,
vs.
THE BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY and ROBERT ORR FERGUZON, respondents.
Quijano, Rosete and Tizon for petitioner.
Perkins, Ponce Enrile, Contreras and Gomez for respondent.
Claro M. Recto as amicus curiae.
TORRES, J.:
In his petition for certiorari against the
Board of Accountancy and Robert Orr Ferguson, J. A. Sison prays that
this Court render judgment "ordering the respondent Board of Accountancy
to revoke the certificate issued to Robert Orr Ferguson, a British
subject admitted without examination because there does not exist any
reciprocity between the Philippines and the United Kingdom regarding the
practice of accountancy."
Upon perusal of the pleadings and for a clear
understanding of the issue raised by petitioner the following facts,
which we believe are not disputed, shall be stated:
Pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 342, several
persons, British subjects, and the possessors of certificates as
chartered accountants issued by various incorporated private
accountant's societies in England and other parts of the British Empire,
were, without examination, granted by the respondents Board of
Accountancy, certificates as public accountants to practice their
profession in this jurisdiction. The respondent Robert Orr Ferguson was
granted certificate No. 713-W on January 14, 1939 pursuant to resolution
No. 24 of the Board of Accountancy, series of 1938.
Subsequently, the Board of Accountancy, upon the
examination of the case of those British accountants without
examination, came to the conclusion that , there being no law which
regulates the practice of accountancy in England, and that the practice
of accountancy in England, and that the practice of accountancy in said
country being limited only to the members of incorporated private
accountant's societies, the certificates issued by the Institutes of
chartered accountants and other similar societies in England and Wales
cannot be considered on a par with the public accountant's certificates
issued by the Philippine Board of Accountancy, which is government
entity. In view thereof, the respondent Board of Accountancy "resolved
to suspend, . . . the validity of the C.P.A. certificates of the
above-mentioned candidates pending the final revocation thereof should
they fail to prove to the satisfaction of the Board within sixty days'
notice that : (a) Filipinos are allowed to take the professional
accountant examination given by the British government, if any, and (b)
Filipino certified public accountants can, upon application, be
registered as chartered accountants or granted similar degrees by the
British Government." (Annex B.)lawphi1.net
Such action of the Board of Accountancy was based on
an opinion rendered by the Secretary of Justice, on October 1, 1946
(Annex A), to the Chartered Accountants in England and Wales does not
meet the requirement of section 41 of Rule 123 of the Rules of Court and
that the negative statement therein, as quoted above, does not
establish the existence of reciprocity, which induced the board to hold
that the registration, without examination, of those British subjects as
certified public accountants, is in accordance with the provision of
section 122 of Act No. 3105 as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 342.
However, the Secretary of justice, answering a query
from the Secretary of Finance, in an opinion rendered on February 10,
1947 "on the legality of the suspension or revocation " of the
certificates issued to those British subjects as contemplated in
resolution No. 5, series of 1946 of the Board of Accountancy, was of the
opinion that "the board may not suspend or revoke the certificates
previously granted to the ten British accountants herein involved,
including respondent Robert Orr Ferguson, because such action is in
contravention of section 13 of Act No. 3105 as amended which explicitly
provides that the suspension or revocation of the certificate issued
under the said Act may be done by the board for unprofessional conduct of the holder or other sufficient cause.
The Secretary of Justice further said that he believes that "the change
in administrative interpretation with respect to the existence of
reciprocity between the Philippines and Great Britain as to the practice
of accountancy," does not constitute sufficient cause for the
suspension or revocation of the certificates in question within the
meaning of said provision. The opinion of the Secretary of Justice
further said that if those certificates were issued to those British
persons on the assumption that there is "reciprocity between Great
Britain and the Philippines as to the practice of certified public
accountancy in the Philippines" a change of administrative
interpretation is not favored (42 Am. Jur., 412).While in the instant
case the public policy with respect to the practice of foreign
accountants in this country remains unchanged, the action intended by
the Board of Accountancy, to suspend or revoke the certificates already
issued to such persons must be based on some other grounds, such
ignorance, incapacity, deception or fraud on the part of the holder of
the certificates.
In the light of the above, the petitioner brought
this action mainly on the ground that there is no reciprocity "between
the Philippines and the United Kingdom" as regards the practice of the
profession of certified public accountant, because the certificate
submitted by the respondent. Robert Orr Ferguson "is not a public or
financial record, and does not meet the requirements of section 41, rule
21 [123] of the Rules of the Court." And that the furthermore, the
negative statement that "there is nothing in the laws of the United
Kingdom to restrict the right of the Filipino certified public
accountant to practice as professional accountant therein, " does not
established the existence of reciprocity.
Section 12 of Act No. 3105, as amended, reads:
Section 12. Any person who has been engaged in the
professional accountancy work in the Philippine Islands for a period of
five years or more prior to the date of his application, and who holds
certificates as certified public accountant, or as chartered accountant,
or other similar certificates or degrees in the country of nationality,
shall be entitled to registration as certified public accountant and to
receive a certificate of registration as such certified public
accountant from the Board, Provided such country or state does
not restrict the right of the Filipino certified public accountants to
practice therein or grants reciprocal rights to Filipino certified
public accountants to practice therein or grants reciprocal rights to
Filipinos, and provided that the application for their registration
shall be filed with the Board not later than December 31,1938.
From the text of the above-quoted section 12 of the
Accountancy Law, it is inferred that the registration as certified
public accountant and the issuance of the corresponding certificate as
such certified public accountant, to a person who for five years has
been engaged in professional accountancy work in the Philippines and is a
holder of a certificate as certified public accountant, or as a
chartered accountant, or other similar degrees in the country of his
origin, is predicated on the fact that the country of origin of such
foreign applicant (a) "does not restrict the right of the Filipino
certified public accountant to practice therein," (b) "grants reciprocal
rights to the Filipinos," and (c) the application for registration "be
filed with the Board not later than December 31, 1938."
In the case at bar, while the profession of certified
public accountant is not controlled or regulated by the Government of
Great Britain, the country of origin of respondent Robert Orr Ferguson,
according to the record, said respondent had been admitted in this
country to the practice of his profession as certified public accountant
on the strength of his membership of the Institute of Accountants and
Actuaries in Glasgow (England), incorporated by the Royal Charter of
1855. The question of his entitlement to admission to the practice of
his profession in this jurisdiction, does not , therefore, come under
reciprocity, as this principle is known in International Law, but it is
included in the meaning of comity, as expressed in the alternative
condition of the proviso of the above-quoted section 12 which says: such country or state does not restrict the right of Filipino certified public accountants to practice therein.
Mutuality, reciprocity, and comity as bases or elements.
— International Law is founded largely upon mutuality, reciprocity, and
the principle of comity of nations. Comity, in this connection, is
neither a matter of absolute obligation on the one hand, nor of mere
courtesy and good will on the other; it is the recognition which one
nation allows within its territory to the acts of foreign governments
and tribunals, having due regard both to the international duty and
convenience and the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who
are under the protection of its laws. The fact of reciprocity does not
necessarily influence the application of the doctrine of comity,
although it may do so and has been given consideration in some
instances. (30 Am. Jur., 178; Hilton vs. Guyot, 159 U. S., 113, 40 Law.
ed., 95; 16 S. Ct., 139.)
In Hilton vs. Guyot (supra), the
highest court of the United States said that comity "is the recognition
which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative,
executive, or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to
International duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own
citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws. "
Again, in Bank of Augusta vs. Earle, 38 U.S., 13 Pet. 519, 589,
Chief Justice Taney, speaking for the court while Mr. Justice Story —
well-known author of the treatise on Conflict of Laws — was a member of
it, and largely adopting his words, said:
. . . It is needless to enumerate here the instances
in which by the general practice of civilized countries, the laws of the
one will, by the comity of nations, be recognized and executed in
another, where the rights of individuals are concerned . . . The comity
thus extended to other nations is no impeachment of sovereignty. It is
the voluntary act of the nation by which it is offered, and is
inadmissible when contrary to its policy, or prejudicial to its
interest. But it contributes so largely to promote justice between
individuals, and to produce a friendly intercourse between the
sovereignties to which they belong, that courts, but the comity of the
nation, which is administered and ascertained in the same way, and
guided by the same reasoning, by which all other principles of municipal
law are ascertained and guided.
The record shows that the British Minister accredited
to the Philippine Republic in two notes concerning this question,
addressed to the President of the Philippines in his capacity as Head of
the Department of Foreign Affairs, said:
. . . there is no governmental control of the
accounting profession in the United Kingdom and any resident of the
United Kingdom, of whatever nationality, may engage in the profession of
accounting without formality; and . . . that the high standards of the
accounting profession in the United Kingdom are maintained by a number
of private societies whose membership is restricted to persons who have
passed a different professional examination but impose no restriction
whatsoever on membership with respect of nationality. (Night of November
5, 1946.)
Again , the British Minister, in his note of April 15, 1947, further said:
Your Excellency will recall that doubt had been
expressed by the Philippine authorities concerned as to whether
qualified public accountants would be allowed to practice income tax
accounting in the United Kingdom. Accordingly, I requested a ruling on
this point, and I am happy to inform Your Excellency that I have been
authorized by His Majesty Principal Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs to state, for the information of the Government of the
Philippines, that qualified Philippine citizen are allowed to practice
the profession of accountancy including income tax accounting, in the
United Kingdom.
We are bound to take notice of the fact that fact
that the Philippine and the United Kingdom, are bound by a treaty of
friendship and commerce, and each nation is represented in the other by
corresponding diplomatic envoy. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt
the statement and assurance made by the diplomatic representative of the
British Government in the Philippines, regarding the practice of the
accountancy profession in the United Kingdom and the fact that Filipino
certified public accountant will be admitted to practice their
profession in the United Kingdom should they choose to do so.
Under such circumstances, and without necessarily
construing that such attitude of the British Government in the premises,
as represented by the British Minister, amounts to reciprocity, we may
at least state that it comes within the realm of comity, as contemplated
in our law.
It appearing that the record fails to show that the
suspension of this respondent is . . . based on any of the cause
provided by the Accountancy Law, we find no reason why Robert Orr
Ferguson, who had previously been registered as certified public
accountants and issued the corresponding certificate public accountant
in the Philippine Islands, should be suspended from the practice of his
profession in these Islands. The petition is denied, with cost.
Moran, C.J., Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.
No comments:
Post a Comment