Case Digest (A.C. No. 1928) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In A.C. No. 1928, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors, on November 29, 1975, unanimously adopted Resolution No. 75-65 recommending that the name of Atty. Marcial A. Edillon be removed from the Roll of Attorneys for his “stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues” despite due notice under paragraph 2, Section 24, Article III of the IBP By-Laws. On January 21, 1976, IBP President Liliano B. Neri formally transmitted the resolution to the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 24(2), Article III of the By-Laws and Section 10 of Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court, which provides that default in payment of dues for one year is ground for removal from the Roll of Attorneys. The respondent was required on January 27, 1976 to comment; on February 23, he reiterated his refusal. IBP then filed a joint reply on March 24. After a hearing on June 3, 1976, the parties submitted memoranda and the case was submitted for resolution. Edillon conceded the necessity of bar inte Case Digest (A.C. No. 1928) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Integration Framework
- Adoption of Rule 139-A by Supreme Court on January 9, 1973, pursuant to R.A. 6397, integrating the Philippine Bar and prescribing membership dues (Sections 1, 9, 10 of the Rule).
- Enactment of IBP By-Laws, Article III, Section 24(2), authorizing the IBP Board of Governors to recommend removal of delinquent members after due notice.
- Administrative Proceedings
- November 29, 1975: IBP Board unanimously adopts Resolution No. 75-65 (Admin. Case No. MDD-1) recommending respondent’s removal for “stubborn refusal to pay” dues.
- January 21, 1976: IBP President submits resolution to Supreme Court; January 27, 1976: Court requires respondent’s comment; February 23, 1976: respondent reiterates refusal.
- March 2 – 24, 1976: Court calls for and receives IBP reply; June 3, 1976: hearing held; parties file memoranda.
- Respondent’s Contentions
- Concedes general validity of bar integration but contests Rule 139-A’s compulsory membership and dues provisions and IBP By-Laws.
- Claims violation of constitutional rights to liberty, property, and freedom of (not) associating; disputes Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over membership removal.
Issues:
- Compulsory Membership
- Does Rule 139-A’s requirement that every licensed attorney be a member of the IBP violate freedom of association?
- Membership Dues
- Is the proviso compelling attorneys to pay annual dues unconstitutional or void?
- Due Process and Property Rights
- Does enforcement of suspension/removal for non-payment deprive the attorney of property or liberty without due process?
- Supreme Court Jurisdiction
- Has the Court authority to strike an attorney’s name from the Roll of Attorneys for dues delinquency?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)