Arevalo v. Integrated Bar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr. requested exemption from paying P12,035.00 in Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) dues for the years 1977-2005. He argued that he could not be assessed dues for periods when he was in the Philippine Civil Service (1962-1986) and working in the USA (1986-2003), as he was not practicing law during these times. Procedural History: The IBP, in its comment, stated that membership in the IBP is not based on the actual practice of law. It maintained that lawyers remain members as long as they continue their IBP membership, and payment of annual dues is an obligation. The IBP noted that voluntary termination and reinstatement of membership are allowed, and that the Board of Governors was considering an "inactive status" for members. The Petition: Petitioner contended that the IBP Board of Governors' policy of non-exemption from dues, regardless of practice status, suffers from constitutional infirmities (equal protection, due process) and is oppressive. He argued that removal from non-payment would constitute deprivation of property without due process, and that non-practice by inactive members is not injurious to others.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of IBP dues during periods of inactivity in the practice of law. Whether the IBP's policy of non-exemption from annual membership dues is constitutional. Whether the penalty of removal from the Roll of Attorneys for non-payment of dues constitutes deprivation of property without due process.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's request for exemption from payment of IBP dues. It ordered the petitioner to pay the assessed amount of P12,035.00 within ten (10) days from receipt of the decision, with a warning of suspension from the practice of law for failure to comply.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to exemption from IBP dues: The Court ruled in the negative. It explained that an "Integrated Bar" is a State-organized bar where membership and financial support are compulsory for all attorneys as a condition for practicing law and retaining their names in the Roll of Attorneys. Bar integration does not compel association but requires payment of annual dues as a regulatory measure to defray the costs of improving the legal profession. The compulsory nature of payment subsists for as long as one's membership in the IBP remains, irrespective of the member's engagement in active or inactive practice of law. The Court reiterated that there is nothing in the law or rules that allows exemption from payment of membership dues; the only recourse would have been to terminate membership before leaving the country. On the constitutionality of the IBP's policy of non-exemption: The Court found no constitutional infirmity. It affirmed that the Supreme Court has the constitutional power and duty to promulgate rules concerning admission to the practice of law and the integration of the Philippine Bar. This power includes requiring members of the legal profession to pay a reasonable fee towards the expenses of regulating the profession. The fee is imposed as a regulatory measure to fund the noble objectives of integration, and the doctrine of implied powers carries with it the power to impose such an exaction. The public interest promoted by bar integration far outweighs any slight inconvenience to a member resulting from the required payment of annual dues. On deprivation of property without due process: The Court held that the practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege burdened with conditions. Therefore, the enforcement of penalties for non-compliance, such as removal from the Roll of Attorneys for failure to pay dues, does not constitute deprivation of property without due process. The Court cited In re Atty. Marcial Edillon, emphasizing that the right to practice law is subject to regulation and inquiry under the State's police power and the Court's inherent powers. A penalty designed to enforce payment of a regulatory fee, which can be avoided by payment, is not unreasonable or arbitrary.
Main Doctrine
Membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is compulsory for all lawyers, and the payment of annual membership dues is a necessary consequence of such membership, regardless of whether the member is engaged in active or inactive practice of law. There is no provision for exemption from payment of dues, and failure to pay may result in disciplinary action, including suspension from the practice of law.