Scribd
Upload
160 views2 pages

Disbarment of Atty. Marcial Edillon

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled to disbar attorney Marcial Edillon for refusing to pay his membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Edillon argued that compelling payment of dues violated his constitutional rights, and that the Court did not have jurisdiction over administrative matters of bar membership. However, the Court held that: (1) requiring bar membership and dues was a valid exercise of state power to regulate the legal profession, and did not violate Edillon's freedom of association; (2) the Court had authority to establish rules on bar admission and regulation; and (3) the Court inherently had power over admission, discipline and supervision of attorneys. Therefore, Edillon's refusal to comply

Uploaded by

Cedrick
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
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
160 views2 pages

Disbarment of Atty. Marcial Edillon

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled to disbar attorney Marcial Edillon for refusing to pay his membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Edillon argued that compelling payment of dues violated his constitutional rights, and that the Court did not have jurisdiction over administrative matters of bar membership. However, the Court held that: (1) requiring bar membership and dues was a valid exercise of state power to regulate the legal profession, and did not violate Edillon's freedom of association; (2) the Court had authority to establish rules on bar admission and regulation; and (3) the Court inherently had power over admission, discipline and supervision of attorneys. Therefore, Edillon's refusal to comply

Uploaded by

Cedrick
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
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
  • Facts
  • Issues
  • Held/Decision

In re: Atty.

Marcial Edillon
A.C. No. 1928. August 3, 1978
FACTS:

The respondent Martial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Philippines. The
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors unanimously adopted Resolution
recommending to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of
Attorneys for “stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues” to the IBP since the latter’s
constitution notwithstanding due notice. The Court required the respondent to comment on the
resolution; he submitted his comment reiterating his refusal to pay the membership fees due
from him. The core of the respondent’s arguments is that the above provisions constitute an
invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled, as a precondition to
maintaining 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 admittedly personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights
to liberty and property guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the respondent concludes,
the provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP By- Laws are void and of no legal force and
effect. The respondent similarly questions the jurisdiction of the Court to strike his name from
the Roll of Attorneys, contending that the said matter is not among the justiciable cases triable
by the Court but is rather of an “administrative nature pertaining to an administrative body.”

ISSUES

Whether the Court is without power to compel him to become a member of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines. Whether the provision of the Court Rule requiring payment of a membership
fee is void. Whether the enforcement of the penalty provisions would amount to a deprivation of
property without due process and hence infringes on one of his constitutional rights. Whether
the power of SC to strike the name of a lawyer from its Roll of Attorneys is valid.

HELD:

1. To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of Edillon’s


constitutional freedom to associate. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with
anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or
refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected 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 that the cost of improving the
profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program
— the lawyers. But, assuming that the questioned provision does in a sense compel a lawyer to
be a member of the Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police
power of the State. 2. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the Court, to promulgate rules
concerning the admission to the practice of law and the integration of the Philippine Bar (Article
X, Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution) — from requiring members of a privileged class, such as
lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee toward defraying the expenses of regulation of the
profession to which they belong. It is quite apparent that the fee is indeed imposed as a
regulatory measure, designed to raise funds for carrying out the objectives and purposes of
integration. 3. Whether the practice of law is a property right, the respondent’s 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, which penalty may be avoided altogether by payment, is not void as
unreasonable or arbitrary. But it must be emphasized that the practice of law is not a property
right but a mere privilege, and as such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court
to exact compliance with the lawyer’s public responsibilities. 4. Relative to the issue of the power
and/or jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to strike the name of a lawyer from its Roll of
Attorneys, it is sufficient to state that the matters of admission, suspension, disbarment and
reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation and supervision have been and are indisputably
recognized as inherent judicial functions and responsibilities, and the authorities holding such
are legion.

DECISION

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is the unanimous sense of the Court that the respondent
Marcial A. Edillon should be as he is hereby disbarred, and his name is hereby ordered stricken
from the Roll of Attorneys of the Court. Respondent disbarred.

Common questions

Powered by AI

The Supreme Court's decision to strike Marcial A. Edillon's name from its Roll of Attorneys signifies the enforcement of regulatory compliance in the legal profession. It underscores the Court's authority and responsibility to maintain professional ethics and standards among lawyers. The decision reflects the importance of adherence to state-imposed regulations for the privilege of practicing law and reinforces the principle that the practice of law is conditional upon meeting these professional responsibilities .

The document discusses the exercise of police power in relation to the regulation of the legal profession by stating that bar integration and membership dues are justified as part of the state's police power. This regulatory measure aims to elevate the quality of legal services and ensure that the legal profession meets certain standards. The state's interest in maintaining a competent and ethical legal profession justifies the imposition of membership dues on lawyers as a requirement for practicing law .

The document justifies the collection of fees from lawyers as a necessary measure to defray the costs associated with regulating the legal profession. It argues that these fees support the objectives and purposes of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which includes maintaining professional standards and improving the quality of legal services. These fees are regarded as part of the benefits received by members of this privileged class .

The Court considers the requirement for lawyers to pay IBP membership dues as reasonable because the fees are seen as a necessary regulatory measure to support the integrated organization of the bar, aimed at enhancing the quality of legal services. The fees help defray the costs of achieving the objectives of bar integration, which involve setting and maintaining professional standards. This implies that the IBP plays a crucial role in both the professional development of lawyers and the regulation of the legal profession .

Marcial A. Edillon argued that mandatory membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) infringes on his constitutional rights to liberty and property, as it compels financial support for an organization with which he is personally antagonistic. He also questioned the jurisdiction of the Court in striking his name from the Roll of Attorneys. The Court responded by asserting that bar integration as a form of regulation does not infringe on constitutional freedoms, invoking the state's police power to uphold professional standards, and emphasizing that the practice of law is a privilege, not a property right .

The underlying principles that allow the Supreme Court to regulate the practice of law include its inherent judicial functions and responsibilities concerning admission, suspension, disbarment, reinstatement, and supervision of lawyers. The Constitution does not prohibit the Court from requiring lawyers to pay necessary fees as a regulatory measure to sustain the profession. The Court holds the authority to maintain legal standards and ensure lawyers meet their public responsibilities .

The Supreme Court dismisses the claim that mandatory IBP membership dues violate constitutional rights to liberty and property by stating that the practice of law is not a property right but a privilege subject to regulation. By recognizing the fee as a regulatory measure, the Court argues that it is reasonable and necessary to defray the expenses associated with regulating the profession. Thus, the penalty for non-payment of dues, which can be avoided through payment, is not considered a deprivation of property without due process .

The Supreme Court justifies compelling lawyers to become members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as an exercise of the state's police power. This mandate is deemed necessary to further the state's legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services. The Court argues that the cost of improving the legal profession should be shared by those who benefit from the regulatory program, namely the lawyers themselves. The imposition of the membership and dues is seen as a regulatory measure intended to enhance the legal profession's standards .

According to the Supreme Court, the practice of law is not a property right but a privilege. This distinction implies that the legal profession is subject to the Court's regulatory power, which includes imposing conditions such as mandatory membership in the IBP and payment of corresponding dues. The regulation ensures that lawyers fulfill their public responsibilities and adhere to professional standards .

The Supreme Court firmly asserts its jurisdiction over disbarment actions against lawyers, stating that the matters of admission, suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement are inherent judicial functions and responsibilities. The Court regards itself as the ultimate authority responsible for the regulation and supervision of the legal profession, as supported by legal precedents .

In re: Atty. Marcial Edillon A.C. No. 1928. August 3, 1978 FACTS: The respondent Martial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practi
to enforce its payment, which penalty may be avoided altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary. But it

You might also like