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.
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.
nocicrep-za Courtney Kiana https://www.tizeiros.com/profile/queanyahkamuzusaneesh/profile
ReplyDeletedrilunremde