G.R. No. AC 1928 December 19, 1980
In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edillon (IBP Administrative Case No. MDD-1)

FACTS

Atty. Marcial A. Edillon was disbarred by the Supreme Court on August 3, 1978, for his stubborn refusal to pay his mandatory membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP Board of Governors had recommended his removal from the Roll of Attorneys pursuant to Section 10, Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court and the IBP By-Laws, which authorize such action for delinquency lasting one year. Edillon challenged the constitutionality of the compulsory integration of the bar and the payment of dues, arguing it violated his rights to liberty and property by forcing him to join and support an organization.
The Court, in its 1978 disbarment resolution, unanimously rejected Edillon’s constitutional challenge. It reaffirmed its 1973 ruling in In re Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, holding that integration is a valid exercise of the Court’s regulatory power over the legal profession to raise standards and improve justice administration. Following his disbarment, Edillon filed repeated pleadings seeking reinstatement, beginning with a motion for reconsideration in August 1978, which was denied.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Marcial A. Edillon should be reinstated to the practice of law after having been disbarred for refusal to pay IBP dues.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted Edillon’s petition for reinstatement. The Court emphasized its plenary and discretionary power to reinstate a disbarred lawyer, exercised not vindictively but on a preservative principle to protect the public and the integrity of the legal profession. The ruling hinged on a demonstrated change in Edillon’s attitude and circumstances.
The legal logic proceeded from the Court’s inherent regulatory authority. While the 1978 disbarment was justified due to Edillon’s defiance of a valid rule and his refusal to acknowledge the Court’s competence on the matter, his subsequent pleadings revealed a significant shift. The tone of defiance was gone, replaced by pleas citing his advanced age, health, and the welfare of former clients who still relied on him. Critically, the Court noted that Edillon had fully paid his delinquent IBP dues and submitted a verified application for reinstatement with an undertaking to abide by all IBP rules. This constituted an acceptance of the Court’s authority and the conditions of bar membership.
The Court balanced the need for discipline with the possibility of redemption. More than two years of disbarment were deemed a sufficient period of penalty. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, and its loss is not irretrievably final. Where a transgressor shows due contrition and complies with all requirements after a significant lapse of time, reinstatement becomes appropriate. Thus, the Court resolved that Edillon had purged himself of his guilt and ordered his restoration to the Roll of Attorneys.