Edillon v. Integrated Bar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Marcial A. Edillon was disbarred on August 3, 1978, for "stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues" to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) since its constitution. The IBP Board of Governors recommended his removal from the Roll of Attorneys. Procedural History: The IBP submitted its resolution to the Court for approval. Edillon was required to comment and reiterated his refusal to pay. The Court required a reply from the IBP, and after hearing and submission of memoranda, the case was submitted for resolution. The Court, in a minute resolution dated October 23, 1980, granted Edillon's prayer for reinstatement, subject to issuing an extended opinion. The Petition: Edillon repeatedly pleaded for reinstatement from June 5, 1979. His petition was granted by the Court's minute resolution on October 23, 1980.
Issue(s)
Whether the provisions of the Rules of Court and IBP By-Laws compelling membership and payment of dues as a pre-condition to maintaining one's status as a lawyer are void for invading constitutional rights. Whether Atty. Marcial A. Edillon should be reinstated to the Roll of Attorneys.
Ruling
The Court resolved to grant the petition of Mr. Marcial A. Edillon for reinstatement as a member of the Philippine Bar. He was allowed to take anew the lawyer's oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys after payment of the required fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the constitutionality of IBP membership and dues: The Court reiterated its previous ruling in In re Integration of the Bar of the Philippines that the integration of the Philippine Bar raises no constitutional question and is legally unobjectionable. The Court found that the integration is an imperative means to raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility effectively. Edillon's submission that he is being compelled to support an organization to which he is personally antagonistic, thereby depriving him of liberty and property rights, was found to be without merit as it had been exhaustively considered and rejected by the Court in prior cases. The Court emphasized that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, and failure to abide by these conditions can lead to the loss of such privilege. On the issue of reinstatement: The Court exercised its full and plenary discretion to reinstate Edillon. This decision was based on several factors, including Edillon's full payment of delinquent membership fees and his submission of an undertaking to abide by IBP by-laws. Furthermore, the Court considered his changed attitude, evidenced by letters expressing contrition and invoking mitigating circumstances such as his health and advanced age. The Court also took into account the welfare of his former clients who still rely on him. The Court applied the principle that the power to discipline, especially disbarment, should be exercised on the preservative, not vindictive, principle. Having been disbarred for over two years, and with evidence of contrition and acceptance of the Court's authority, his privilege was restored.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court has the full and plenary discretion to reinstate a disbarred member of the bar, considering relevant factors such as public interest, the integrity of the profession, and the welfare of the individual, provided there is full acceptance of the Court's competence and payment of dues, and sufficient time has elapsed with evidence of contrition.