Case Digest Basic Legal Ethics Subject in The Matter of The IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION (IBP Administrative Case No. MDD-1) (A.M. No. 1928 August 3, 1978)

The document summarizes a case digest regarding membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The case involved lawyer Marcial Edillon who refused to pay his IBP membership dues, arguing that compelling payment violated his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court ruled that: (1) the IBP is the mandatory state bar that all lawyers must join, unlike voluntary bar associations; (2) requiring payment of reasonable annual dues does not violate freedom of association, as lawyers can choose whether to participate in IBP activities; and (3) the Court can regulate the legal profession, including compelling payment of IBP dues, using its inherent powers over lawyer admissions and discipline.

Uploaded by

Grandeur P. G. Guerrero

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

100% found this document useful (1 vote)

2K views2 pages

Case Digest Basic Legal Ethics Subject in The Matter of The IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION (IBP Administrative Case No. MDD-1) (A.M. No. 1928 August 3, 1978)

Uploaded by

Grandeur P. G. Guerrero

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 2

CASE DIGEST ON BASIC LEGAL ETHICS SUBJECT

1st Year 2nd Semester

Student : Guerrero, Grandeur P.G.

Freshman, Juris Doctor
Professor : Atty. Teofilo S. Villanueva

Case Digest, in re: Membership in the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines (IBP)

Title: In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues

Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION (IBP
Administrative Case No. MDD-1) [A.M. No. 1928
August 3, 1978]

Ponente: Chief Justice Castro

FACTS:

The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in

the Philippines. The IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Court the
removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for
stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the provisions of the
Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of
the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of IBP, payment of
membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same. Edillon
contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his
constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled as a pre-
condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a
member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a
consequence of this compelled financial support of the said organization to
which he is admitted personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the
rights to liberty and properly guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence,
the respondent concludes the above provisions of the Court Rule and of
the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the court may compel Atty. Edillion to pay his membership
fee to the IBP.

RULING:

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) is a State-organized Bar which

every lawyer must be a member of as distinguished from Bar associations
in which membership is merely optional and voluntary. All lawyers are
subject to comply with the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar
including payment of a reasonable annual fees as one of the requirements.
The Rules of Court only compels him to pay his annual dues and it is not in
violation of his constitutional freedom to associate. Bar integration does not
compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not the
meeting of his IBP Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its election as he
chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected to is the payment
of annual dues. The Supreme Court in order to further the State’s
legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services,
may require the cost of the regulatory program – the lawyers. Such
compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the State. The
right to practice law before the courts of this country should be and is a
matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And if the power to impose the
fee as a regulatory measure is recognize then a penalty designed to
enforce its payment is not void as unreasonable as arbitrary. Furthermore,
the Court has jurisdiction over matters of admission, suspension,
disbarment, and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation as part of its
inherent judicial functions and responsibilities thus the court may compel
all members of the IBP to pay their annual dues.