Case Digest (G.R. No. 135925)
Facts:
In B.M. No. 1370, petitioner Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr. wrote the Supreme Court on 22 September 2004 requesting exemption from Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) dues totaling ₱12,035.00 for the years 1977 to 2005. He explained that after bar admission in 1961 he served in the Philippine Civil Service from July 1962 until 1986, during which he was prohibited from practicing law, and thereafter lived and worked in the United States from December 1986 until his retirement in 2003. On 5 October 2004 the Court referred the letter to the IBP, which on 16 November 2004 filed comments asserting that membership in the Integrated Bar is mandatory regardless of active practice and that Sections 9 and 10, Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court require payment of annual dues to defray the cost of bar integration. The IBP noted no existing rule on exemption and pointed out that petitioner could have voluntarily terminated his membership before leaving the country. In his 22 February 2005 r...Case Digest (G.R. No. 135925)
Facts:
- Petitioner’s Background and Request
- Admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1961; served in the Philippine Civil Service from July 1962 to 1986; practiced law in the USA from December 1986 until retirement in 2003.
- By letter dated 22 September 2004, Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr. sought exemption from payment of Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) dues totalling ₱12,035.00 for the years 1977–2005, alleging inactive status during civil service and foreign practice.
- Proceedings Before the IBP and the Supreme Court
- On 5 October 2004, the Court referred the letter to the IBP for comment. On 16 November 2004, the IBP opposed exemption, maintaining that membership and payment of annual dues are mandatory and suggesting voluntary termination or future inactive status as alternatives.
- On 22 February 2005, petitioner replied, challenging the non-exemption policy under the equal protection and due process clauses and claiming that compulsory dues would be oppressive and constitute deprivation of property without due process.
Issues:
- Exemption from Dues
- Whether petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of IBP dues for the periods he was allegedly inactive—namely, during his civil service (1962–1986) and foreign practice (1986–2003).
- Constitutional Validity
- Whether the IBP Board of Governors’ policy of non-exemption from annual dues violates the equal protection and due process clauses or otherwise constitutes an unlawful deprivation of property.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)