Case Summary (AC-1928)
Disbarment Proceedings and Outcome
The Supreme Court required Edillon to comment (Jan. 1976), held a hearing (June 3, 1976), and received memoranda. On August 3, 1978, by unanimous vote (late Chief Justice Castro, ponente), the Court disbarred Edillon for nonpayment of dues and refusal to recognize the Court’s authority.
Constitutional Challenge to Compulsory IBP Membership
Edillon contended that mandatory IBP membership and compulsory dues infringed his rights to liberty and property under the Constitution by compelling financial support of an organization to which he was “personally antagonistic.” He asserted that Rule 139-A and the IBP By-Laws provisions were void for constitutional violation.
Precedential Bar Integration Ruling
The Court referred to Administrative Case No. 526 (Jan. 9, 1973; 49 SCRA 22), which upheld the constitutionality of bar integration under contemporary conditions to elevate professional standards, improve justice administration, and enable the Bar to discharge public responsibilities effectively.
Persistence and Denial of Reinstatement
Edillon filed a motion for reconsideration on August 19, 1978, challenging the Court’s competence and sustaining his refusal to pay. This motion was denied on November 23, 1978, reflecting his obstinate stance and justifying the extreme penalty.
Changed Circumstances and Renewed Reinstatement Petition
From June 5, 1979, onward, Edillon’s letters adopted a contrite tone, citing advanced age, health issues, and concern for clients who continued to rely on him. He acknowledged the Court’s authority over bar regulation, fully paid his delinquent dues, and submitted a verified application for reinstatement with an undertaking to abide by all IBP by-laws.
Discretionary Power to Discipline and Reinstatement
The Court emphasized its full and plenary discretion in reinstating disbarred lawyers, weighing public interest, professional integrity, and the rehabilitated practitioner’s welfare. Drawing on the preservative (not vindictive) principle in discipli
...continue readingCase Syllabus (AC-1928)
Procedural Background
- November 29, 1975: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors unanimously adopted Resolution No. 75-65 in Administrative Case No. MDD-1, recommending removal of Atty. Marcial A. Edillon from the Roll of Attorneys for “stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues” after due notice.
- January 21, 1976: IBP President Liliano B. Neri submitted the Board’s resolution to the Supreme Court under paragraph 2, Section 24, Article III of the IBP By-Laws.
- January 27, 1976: The Supreme Court required Edillon to comment; he replied on February 23, 1976, reiterating his refusal to pay.
- March 2, 1976: The Court directed the IBP President and Board to reply; they filed a joint response on March 24, 1976.
- June 3, 1976: Hearing held; parties submitted memoranda in amplification of oral arguments; matter submitted for resolution.
- August 3, 1978: By unanimous vote (Chief Justice Castro as ponente), the Court disbarred Edillon.
- August 19, 1978: Edillon filed a motion for reconsideration; denied on November 23, 1978.
- June 5, 1979 to April 12, 1980: Edillon submitted various letters and petitions for reinstatement, evidencing a change in tone.
- October 23, 1980: Minute resolution granted his petition for reinstatement upon full payment of dues and undertaking to abide by IBP By-Laws.
Factual Background
- Edillon consistently refused to pay IBP membership dues despite notices and invitations to explain.
- IBP By-Laws (Art. III, Sec. 24, par. 2): Six months’ nonpayment warrants inquiry; one year’s default authorizes recommendation for removal from Roll of Attorneys.
- Rule 139-A, Sec. 10, Rules of Court: Six m