Case Digest: In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion | A.M. No. 1928, 3 August 1978

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edilion
A.M. No. 1928, 3 August 1978

Facts:
    The respondent is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Supreme 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 Rules of Court 139-A and the provisions of Paragraph 2, Section 24, Article III of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of the IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same.

    Edilion 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 Rules of Court and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.

Issue:
    Whether or not the Supreme Court may compel the respondent to pay his membership fee to the IBP.

Held:
    The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which every lawyer must be a member of a 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 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 free to associate. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not the meeting of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its election as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues.

    The Supreme Court concluded that the provisions of Rules of Court (Article 139-A) and of the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines complained of are neither unconstitutional nor illegal.

    The Supreme Court disbarred the respondent and his name stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys of the Court.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest for Articles 143-146: Carino v. Carino G.R. No. 132529, 2 February 2001

SUSAN NICDAO CARIÑO, petitioner, v. SUSAN YEE CARIÑO, respondent. G.R. No. 132529, 2 February 2001 Facts: In 1969 SPO4 Santiago Cariño married Susan Nicdao Cariño. He had 2 children with her. In 1992, SPO4 contracted a second marriage, this time with Susan Yee Cariño. In 1988, prior to his second marriage, SPO4 is already bedridden and he was under the care of Yee. In 1992, he died 13 days after his marriage with Yee. Thereafter, the spouses went on to claim the benefits of SPO4. Nicdao was able to claim a total of P140,000.00 while Yee was able to collect a total of P21,000.00. In 1993, Yee filed an action for collection of sum of money against Nicdao. She wanted to have half of the P140k. Yee admitted that her marriage with SPO4 was solemnized during the subsistence of the marriage b/n SPO4 and Nicdao but the said marriage between Nicdao and SPO4 is null and void due to the absence of a valid marriage license as certified by the local civil registrar. Yee also claimed t
Read more

Case Digest: Conrado N. Que, Complainant, v. Atty Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., Respondent | A.C. No. 7054, 11 November 2014

Conrado N. Que, Complainant, v. Atty Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., Respondent A.C. No. 7054, 11 November 2014 Facts:     Que accused Revilla, Jr. of willfully delaying the final judgment of the lower court against his client. Respondent successfully filed a petition of certiorari before the Court of Appeals, two petitions of annulment of title and a petition for annulment of judgment before the Regional Trial Court, and a petition for declaratory execution of the lower court’s decision against his client. Issue:     Whether or not the respondent violated various canons and provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Held:     Respondent’s abuse of court remedies by filing multiple actions praying for the same cause delayed the execution of the final judgment of the court. The respondent’s willful and revolting falsehood is also alleged by the complainant that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico who was the previous
Read more