Case Summary (A.C. No. 1928)
Legal Framework for Bar Integration and Dues
Rule 139-A establishes the IBP as the official national body composed of all attorneys on the Supreme Court’s Roll. Section 9 mandates annual dues as determined by the Board with Court approval. Section 10 authorizes suspension for six-month default and removal for one-year default. The IBP By-Laws mirror these provisions and assign the Board power to recommend removals.
Respondent’s Constitutional Challenges
Edillon contended that compulsory membership and mandatory dues infringe his rights to liberty, property, and freedom of association under the Constitution then in force, and that only the IBP as an administrative entity, not the Supreme Court, could address dues delinquency.
Integration Under Police Power and Public Interest
The Court reaffirmed that the practice of law is a regulated privilege “affected with a public interest,” subject to police power. Congress, by RA 6397, empowered the Court to integrate the Bar to raise standards and improve justice administration. Integration and its attendant requirements were upheld as valid exercises of state authority promoting the general welfare.
Free Association and Compulsory Membership
Compelling a licensed attorney to join the IBP does not violate freedom of association, since passing the Bar already makes one a member of the legal fraternity. Integration merely provides an official structure without forcing participation beyond dues payment, which is justified by the public interest in professional regulation.
Lawful Imposition of Membership Dues
Under its constitutional rule-making authority, the Supreme Court may impose reasonable fees on attorneys to defray regulatory expenses. Such dues are regulatory measures designed to sustain professional standards and are not prohibited by constitutional provisions.
Due Process and Regulatory Penalties
The penalty for non-payment—removal from the Roll—is a regulatory enforcement mechanism, avoidable by compliance. The practice of law is a privilege, not a property right, and may be conditioned on adherence to reasonable regulatory requireme
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 1928)
Facts of the Case
- Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed attorney in the Philippines.
- On November 29, 1975, the IBP Board of Governors adopted Resolution No. 75-65 in Administrative Case No. MDD-1 recommending removal of Edillon’s name from the Roll of Attorneys for “stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues.”
- The IBP President submitted the resolution to the Supreme Court on January 21, 1976, under paragraph 2, Section 24, Article III of the IBP By-Laws.
- The Court required Edillon’s comment on January 27, 1976; he reiterated his refusal on February 23, 1976.
- The IBP replied on March 24, 1976, and the case was heard on June 3, 1976, with memoranda thereafter filed.
Procedural History
- IBP Board’s resolution of delinquency → submitted to the Supreme Court.
- Court required respondent’s comment → respondent refused to pay dues.
- Court required IBP reply → joint reply filed.
- Hearing conducted → parties submitted memoranda → case submitted for resolution.
Governing Legal Provisions
- IBP By-Laws, Article III, Section 24(2): authority to recommend removal for one-year dues delinquency.
- Supreme Court Rule 139-A, Section 1: integration of all persons on the Roll of Attorneys into one national body.
- Rule 139-A, Section 9: obligation of every IBP member to pay annual dues.
- Rule 139-A, Section 10: six-month nonpayment warrants suspension; one-y