Edilion v. Integrated Bar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors recommended the removal of Atty. Marcial A. Edillon from the Roll of Attorneys due to his "stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues" since the IBP's constitution, despite due notice. Procedural History: The IBP submitted its resolution to the Supreme Court, which required Atty. Edillon to comment. He reiterated his refusal to pay. The IBP President and Board of Governors replied to his comment. The case was set for hearing, and parties were required to submit memoranda. The matter was then submitted for resolution. The Petition: Atty. Edillon objected to Rule of Court 139-A and provisions of the IBP By-Laws, arguing they constituted an invasion of his constitutional rights to liberty and property by compelling him to be a member of the IBP and pay dues, to which he was personally antagonistic. He also questioned the Court's jurisdiction to strike his name from the Roll of Attorneys.
Issue(s)
Whether the integration of the Philippine Bar and the requirement to pay membership dues violate a lawyer's constitutional rights. Whether the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to strike a lawyer's name from the Roll of Attorneys for non-payment of IBP dues.
Ruling
The Court unanimously resolved to disbar respondent Marcial A. Edillon and ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.
Ratio Decidendi
On the constitutionality of Bar integration and membership dues: The Court held that the integration of the Philippine Bar is a valid exercise of the State's police power and the Supreme Court's constitutional authority. The practice of law is a privilege, not a vested right, and is clothed with public interest, thus subject to regulation for the common good. Compelling membership in the Integrated Bar and payment of annual dues are not violative of the constitutional freedom to associate, as integration merely provides an official national organization for all lawyers. The dues are a reasonable fee to defray the expenses of regulation and carrying out the objectives of integration. The Court cited its Resolution of January 9, 1973, which integrated the Philippine Bar, as having exhaustively considered and upheld these matters as "perfectly constitutional and legally unobjectionable." On the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: The Court affirmed its inherent judicial power and constitutional mandate (Article X, Section 5(5) of the 1973 Constitution) to promulgate rules concerning admission to the practice of law and the integration of the Bar. Matters of admission, suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of lawyers are indisputably recognized as inherent judicial functions. Therefore, the Court possesses the power and jurisdiction to strike a lawyer's name from the Roll of Attorneys for non-compliance with the rules, including the payment of IBP dues.
Main Doctrine
The integration of the Philippine Bar, including the requirement of paying membership dues, is a valid exercise of the State's police power and the Supreme Court's constitutional authority to regulate the practice of law. Failure to pay such dues can be a ground for disbarment.