Scribd
Upload
34 views1 page

27.) in Re Edillion

The document discusses a case where an attorney refused to pay membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The court held that requiring payment of reasonable dues to the IBP was a valid exercise of police power and did not violate the attorney's constitutional rights. While the attorney's name was initially stricken from the rolls for being delinquent, he was later reinstated after expressing contrition.

Uploaded by

April Valencia
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
34 views1 page

27.) in Re Edillion

The document discusses a case where an attorney refused to pay membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The court held that requiring payment of reasonable dues to the IBP was a valid exercise of police power and did not violate the attorney's constitutional rights. While the attorney's name was initially stricken from the rolls for being delinquent, he was later reinstated after expressing contrition.

Uploaded by

April Valencia
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
You are on page 1/ 1

27.

In Re: Edillon, 84 SCRA 568

FACTS:

The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Philippines. On November
29, 1975, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors unanimously adopted Resolution
No. 75-65 in Administrative Case No. MDD-1 (In the Matter of the Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty.
Marcial A. Edillon) 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. Hence, the IBP, through its then President Liliano B. Neri, submitted the said
resolution to the Court for consideration and approval. The respondent argued that the Court is without
power to compel him to become a member of the IBP, hence, Section 1 of the Court Rule is
unconstitutional for it impinges on his constitution right of freedom to associate. Further, he argued that
the provision of the Court Rule requiring payment of a membership fee is void. Lastly, he contends that
the enforcement of penalty provisions would amount to a deprivation of property without due process and
hence infringes on one of his constitutional rights

ISSUE:

Whether or not it assailed provisions constitutes a deprivation of liberty and property of the respondent.

HELD: NO!

The court held that the IBP is a State-organized Bar as distinguished from bar associations that are
organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership of which is voluntary. The IBP however is an
official national body of which all lawyers must be a member and are subjected to the rules prescribed for
the governance of the Bar which includes payment of reasonable annual fee for the purpose of carrying
out its objectives and implementation of regulations in the practice of law. The provisions assailed does
not infringe the constitutional rights of the respondent as it is a valid exercise of police power necessary to
perpetuate its existence with regulatory measures to implement. The name of Edillon was stricken out
from the rolls of attorney for being a delinquent member of the bar but was later reinstated.

RATIO:

Admission to the bar is a privilege burdened with condition. Failure to abide entails loss of such privilege.
Considered in addition was the two (2) years Atty. Edillon was barred to practice law, and the dictum of
Justice Malcolm in Villavicencio v. Lukban that “the power to discipline, especially if amounting to
disbarment, should be exercised in a preservative and not on the vindictive principle”. After contrition on
the part of the petitioner, the court finds reinstatement in order.

You might also like