AM 1928; (August, 1978) (Digest)
A.M. No. 1928. August 3, 1978. In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION.
FACTS
Atty. Marcial A. Edillon, a licensed practicing attorney, refused to pay his mandatory membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Following due notice and his continued delinquency, the IBP Board of Governors adopted Resolution No. 75-65, recommending to the Supreme Court the removal of his name from the Roll of Attorneys pursuant to the IBP By-Laws. The IBP submitted this resolution to the Court for approval. The Court required Edillon to comment, wherein he reiterated his refusal to pay, arguing that compulsory membership and the exaction of dues infringed upon his constitutional rights to liberty and property.
Edillon’s core contention was that the provisions of Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court (the Rule governing Bar integration) and the corresponding IBP By-Laws, which made membership and dues payment compulsory as a condition for maintaining good standing, were unconstitutional. He asserted that he was being compelled to support an organization to which he was antagonistic. Additionally, he questioned the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to order his removal, characterizing the matter as administrative and non-justiciable.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the compulsory integration of the Philippine Bar, requiring all attorneys to be IBP members and pay annual dues, constitutes a valid exercise of state power or an unconstitutional infringement on the rights to liberty and property.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Integrated Bar and ordered Atty. Edillon to pay his dues, rejecting his constitutional and jurisdictional challenges. The legal logic is anchored on the Court’s inherent and plenary power to regulate the legal profession. The Court explained that the practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege burdened with conditions for the public good. The integration of the Bar is a permissible exercise of this regulatory power, designed to elevate professional standards, improve administration of justice, and enable the legal profession to discharge its public responsibilities more effectively.
Compulsory membership in an integrated Bar is not an abridgment of freedom of association. The integration does not compel association for political or ideological purposes but for state regulation of a profession imbued with public interest. The required dues are akin to a license fee imposed as a necessary incident of regulation, not a tax. The Court, citing its earlier resolution in In the Matter of the Petition for the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, reaffirmed that integration is “perfectly constitutional and legally unobjectionable.” The power to remove a delinquent member’s name from the Roll of Attorneys is a direct and inherent component of the Court’s authority to discipline lawyers and ensure compliance with its rules for the profession’s governance. Edillon’s refusal to pay dues, therefore, warranted the prescribed administrative sanction.