9/29/2016 A.M. No.

1928

TodayisThursday,September29,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

A.M.No.1928August3,1978

IntheMatteroftheIBPMembershipDuesDelinquencyofAtty.MARCIALA.EDILION(IBPAdministrative
CaseNo.MDD1)

RESOLUTION

CASTRO,C.J.:

TherespondentMarcialA.EdillonisadulylicensedpracticingattorneyinthePhilippines.

On November 29, 1975, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP for short) Board of Governors unanimously
adopted Resolution No. 7565 in Administrative Case No. MDD1 (In the Matter of the Membership Dues
DelinquencyofAtty.MarcialA.Edillon)recommendingtotheCourttheremovalofthenameoftherespondentfrom
its Roll of Attorneys for "stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues" to the IBP since the latter's constitution
notwithstandingduenotice.

OnJanuary21,1976,theIBP,throughitsthenPresidentLilianoB.Neri,submittedthesaidresolutiontotheCourt
for consideration and approval, pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 24, Article III of the ByLaws of the IBP, which
reads:

....ShouldthedelinquencyfurthercontinueuntilthefollowingJune29,theBoardshallpromptlyinquire
into the cause or causes of the continued delinquency and take whatever action it shall deem
appropriate, including a recommendation to the Supreme Court for the removal of the delinquent
member'snamefromtheRollofAttorneys.Noticeoftheactiontakenshallbesentbyregisteredmailto
thememberandtotheSecretaryoftheChapterconcerned.

OnJanuary27,1976,theCourtrequiredtherespondenttocommentontheresolutionandletteradvertedtoabove
hesubmittedhiscommentonFebruary23,1976,reiteratinghisrefusaltopaythemembershipfeesduefromhim.

On March 2, 1976, the Court required the IBP President and the IBP Board of Governors to reply to Edillon's
comment:onMarch24,1976,theysubmittedajointreply.

Thereafter, the case was set for hearing on June 3, 1976. After the hearing, the parties were required to submit
memorandainamplificationoftheiroralarguments.Thematterwasthenceforthsubmittedforresolution.

Atthethreshold,apainstakingscrutinyoftherespondent'spleadingswouldshowthattheproprietyandnecessityof
theintegrationoftheBarofthePhilippinesareinessenceconceded.Therespondent,however,objectstoparticular
featuresofRuleofCourt139A(hereinafterreferredtoastheCourtRule)1inaccordancewithwhichtheBarofthe
Philippineswasintegratedandtotheprovisionsofpar.2,Section24,ArticleIII,oftheIBPByLaws(hereinabovecited).

The authority of the IBP Board of Governors to recommend to the Supreme Court the removal of a delinquent
member's name from the Roll of Attorneys is found in par. 2 Section 24, Article Ill of the IBP ByLaws (supra),
whereas the authority of the Court to issue the order applied for is found in Section 10 of the Court Rule, which
reads:

SEC.10.Effectofnonpaymentofdues.SubjecttotheprovisionsofSection12ofthisRule,default
inthepaymentofannualduesforsixmonthsshallwarrantsuspensionofmembershipintheIntegrated
Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the
delinquentmemberfromtheRollofAttorneys.

Theallencompassing,allinclusivescopeofmembershipintheIBPisstatedinthesewordsoftheCourtRule:

SECTION1.Organization.Thereisherebyorganizedanofficialnationalbodytobeknownasthe
'IntegratedBarofthePhilippines,'composedofallpersonswhosenamesnowappearormayhereafter
beincludedintheRollofAttorneysoftheSupremeCourt.

TheobligationtopaymembershipduesiscouchedinthefollowingwordsoftheCourtRule:

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/aug1978/am_1928_1978.html 1/5
9/29/2016 A.M. No. 1928
SEC. 9. Membership dues. Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues as the
BoardofGovernorsshalldeterminewiththeapprovaloftheSupremeCourt....

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,theaboveprovisionsoftheCourtRuleandoftheIBPByLawsarevoidandofnolegalforceandeffect.

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
"administrativenaturepertainingtoanadministrativebody."

ThecaseatbarisnotthefirstonethathasreachedtheCourtrelatingtoconstitutionalissuesthatinevitablyand
inextricably come up to the surface whenever attempts are made to regulate the practice of law, define the
conditionsofsuchpractice,orrevokethelicensegrantedfortheexerciseofthelegalprofession.

The matters here complained of are the very same issues raised in a previous case before the Court, entitled
"AdministrativeCaseNo.526,IntheMatterofthePetitionfortheIntegrationoftheBarofthePhilippines,Roman
Ozaeta, et al., Petitioners." The Court exhaustively considered all these matters in that case in its Resolution
ordainingtheintegrationoftheBarofthePhilippines,promulgatedonJanuary9,1973.TheCourttheremadethe
unanimouspronouncementthatitwas

... fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing conscientious study of all the arguments adduced in Adm.
CaseNo.526andtheauthoritativematerialsandthemassoffactualdatacontainedintheexhaustive
Report of the Commission on Bar Integration, that the integration of the Philippine Bar is 'perfectly
constitutionalandlegallyunobjectionable'....

Bethatasitmay,wenowrestatebrieflythepostureoftheCourt.

An "Integrated Bar" is a Stateorganized Bar, to which every lawyer must belong, as distinguished from bar
associationsorganizedbyindividuallawyersthemselves,membershipinwhichisvoluntary.IntegrationoftheBaris
essentiallyaprocessbywhicheverymemberoftheBarisaffordedanopportunitytodohisshareincarryingoutthe
objectivesoftheBaraswellasobligedtobearhisportionofitsresponsibilities.Organizedbyorunderthedirection
oftheState,anintegratedBarisanofficialnationalbodyofwhichalllawyersarerequiredtobemembers.Theyare,
therefore,subjecttoalltherulesprescribedforthegovernanceoftheBar,includingtherequirementofpaymentofa
reasonable annual fee for the effective discharge of the purposes of the Bar, and adherence to a code of
professionalethicsorprofessionalresponsibilitybreachofwhichconstitutessufficientreasonforinvestigationbythe
Barand,uponpropercauseappearing,arecommendationfordisciplineordisbarmentoftheoffendingmember.2

TheintegrationofthePhilippineBarwasobviouslydictatedbyoverridingconsiderationsofpublicinterestandpublic
welfaretosuchanextentasmorethanconstitutionallyandlegallyjustifiestherestrictionsthatintegrationimposes
uponthepersonalinterestsandpersonalconvenienceofindividuallawyers.3

Apropostotheabove,itmustbestressedthatalllegislationdirectingtheintegrationoftheBarhavebeenuniformly
anduniversallysustainedasavalidexerciseofthepolicepoweroveranimportantprofession.Thepracticeoflawis
not a vested right but a privilege, a privilege moreover clothed with public interest because a lawyer owes
substantialdutiesnotonlytohisclient,butalsotohisbrethrenintheprofession,tothecourts,andtothenation,and
takespartinoneofthemostimportantfunctionsoftheStatetheadministrationofjusticeasanofficerofthe
court.4Thepracticeoflawbeingclothedwithpublicinterest,theholderofthisprivilegemustsubmittoadegreeofcontrol
forthecommongood,totheextentoftheinteresthehascreated.AstheU.S.SupremeCourtthroughMr.JusticeRoberts
explained, the expression "affected with a public interest" is the equivalent of "subject to the exercise of the police power"
(Nebbiavs.NewYork,291U.S.502).

When,therefore,CongressenactedRepublicActNo.6397 5authorizingtheSupremeCourtto"adoptrulesofcourtto
effecttheintegrationofthePhilippineBarundersuchconditionsasitshallseefit,"itdidsointheexerciseoftheparamount
policepoweroftheState.TheAct'savowalisto"raisethestandardsofthelegalprofession,improvetheadministrationof
justice,andenabletheBartodischargeitspublicresponsibilitymoreeffectively."Hence,theCongressinenactingsuchAct,
theCourtinordainingtheintegrationoftheBarthroughitsResolutionpromulgatedonJanuary9,1973,andthePresidentof
thePhilippinesindecreeingtheconstitutionoftheIBPintoabodycorporatethroughPresidentialDecreeNo.181datedMay
4,1973,werepromptedbyfundamentalconsiderationsofpublicwelfareandmotivatedbyadesiretomeetthedemandsof
pressingpublicnecessity.

The State, in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere with and regulate personal liberty, property and
occupations. Persons and property may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to secure the general
prosperityandwelfareoftheState(U.S.vs.GomezJesus,31Phil218),for,astheLatinmaximgoes,"Saluspopuli
estsupremelex."Thepublicwelfareisthesupremelaw.Tothisfundamentalprincipleofgovernmenttherightsof
individualsaresubordinated.Libertyisablessingwithoutwhichlifeisamisery,butlibertyshouldnotbemadeto
prevail over authority because then society win fall into anarchy (Calalang vs. Williams, 70 Phil. 726). It is an
undoubtedpoweroftheStatetorestrainsomeindividualsfromallfreedom,andallindividualsfromsomefreedom.

ButthemostcompellingargumentsustainingtheconstitutionalityandvalidityofBarintegrationinthePhilippinesis
the explicit unequivocal grant of precise power to the Supreme Court by Section 5 (5) of Article X of the 1973
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/aug1978/am_1928_1978.html 2/5
9/29/2016 A.M. No. 1928
ConstitutionofthePhilippines,whichreads:

Sec.5.TheSupremeCourtshallhavethefollowingpowers:

xxxxxxxxx

(5)Promulgaterulesconcerningpleading,practice,andpro.procedureinallcourts,andtheadmission
tothepracticeoflawandtheintegrationoftheBar...,

andSection1ofRepublicActNo.6397,whichreads:

SECTION 1. Within two years from the approval of this Act, the Supreme Court may adopt rules of
CourttoeffecttheintegrationofthePhilippineBarundersuchconditionsasitshallseefitinorderto
raisethestandardsofthelegalprofession,improvetheadministrationofjustice,andenabletheBarto
dischargeitspublicresponsibilitymoreeffectively.

Quiteapartfromtheabove,letitbestatedthatevenwithouttheenablingAct(RepublicActNo.6397),andlooking
solely to the language of the provision of the Constitution granting the Supreme Court the power "to promulgate
rulesconcerningpleading,practiceandprocedureinallcourts,andtheadmissiontothepracticeoflaw,"itatonce
becomes indubitable that this constitutional declaration vests the Supreme Court with plenary power in all cases
regardingtheadmissiontoandsupervisionofthepracticeoflaw.

Thus,whentherespondentEdillonentereduponthelegalprofession,hispracticeoflawandhisexerciseofthesaid
profession,whichaffectthesocietyatlarge,were(andare)subjecttothepowerofthebodypolitictorequirehimto
conform to such regulations as might be established by the proper authorities for the common good, even to the
extentofinterferingwithsomeofhisliberties.Ifhedidnotwishtosubmithimselftosuchreasonableinterference
andregulation,heshouldnothaveclothedthepublicwithaninterestinhisconcerns.

Onthisscorealone,thecasefortherespondentmustalreadyfall.

Theissuesbeingofconstitutionaldimension,however,wenowconciselydealwiththemseriatim.

1.ThefirstobjectionposedbytherespondentisthattheCourtiswithoutpowertocompelhimtobecomeamember
oftheIntegratedBarofthePhilippines,hence,Section1oftheCourtRuleisunconstitutionalforitimpingesonhis
constitutional right of freedom to associate (and not to associate). Our answer is: To compel a lawyer to be a
memberoftheIntegratedBarisnotviolativeofhisconstitutionalfreedomtoassociate.6

Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member. He became a
memberoftheBarwhenhepassedtheBarexaminations. 7 All that integration actually does is to provide an official
nationalorganizationforthewelldefinedbutunorganizedandincohesivegroupofwhicheverylawyerisareadyamember.
8

Barintegrationdoesnotcompelthelawyertoassociatewithanyone.Heisfreetoattendornotattendthemeetings
ofhisIntegratedBarChapterorvoteorrefusetovoteinitselectionsashechooses.Theonlycompulsiontowhich
heissubjectedisthepaymentofannualdues.TheSupremeCourt,inordertofurthertheState'slegitimateinterest
inelevatingthequalityofprofessionallegalservices,mayrequirethatthecostofimprovingtheprofessioninthis
fashionbesharedbythesubjectsandbeneficiariesoftheregulatoryprogramthelawyers.9

Assuming that the questioned provision does in a sense compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar,
suchcompulsionisjustifiedasanexerciseofthepolicepoweroftheState.10

2. The second issue posed by the respondent is that the provision of the Court Rule requiring payment of a
membershipfeeisvoid.WeseenothingintheConstitutionthatprohibitstheCourt,underitsconstitutionalpower
anddutytopromulgaterulesconcerningtheadmissiontothepracticeoflawandtheintegrationofthePhilippine
Bar(ArticleX,Section5ofthe1973Constitution)whichpowertherespondentacknowledgesfromrequiring
members of a privileged class, such as lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee toward defraying the expenses of
regulationoftheprofessiontowhichtheybelong.Itisquiteapparentthatthefeeisindeedimposedasaregulatory
measure,designedtoraisefundsforcarryingouttheobjectivesandpurposesofintegration.11

3.Therespondentfurtherarguesthattheenforcementofthepenaltyprovisionswouldamounttoadeprivationof
propertywithoutdueprocessandhenceinfringesononeofhisconstitutionalrights.Whetherthepracticeoflawisa
propertyright,inthesenseofitsbeingonethatentitlestheholderofalicensetopracticeaprofession,wedonot
here pause to consider at length, as it clear that under the police power of the State, and under the necessary
powersgrantedtotheCourttoperpetuateitsexistence,therespondent'srighttopractiselawbeforethecourtsof
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
altogetherbypayment,isnotvoidasunreasonableorarbitrary.12

Butwemusthereemphasizethatthepracticeoflawisnotapropertyrightbutamereprivilege,13andassuchmust
bowtotheinherentregulatorypoweroftheCourttoexactcompliancewiththelawyer'spublicresponsibilities.

4.Relativetotheissueofthepowerand/orjurisdictionoftheSupremeCourttostrikethenameofalawyerfromits
RollofAttorneys,itissufficienttostatethatthemattersofadmission,suspension,disbarmentandreinstatementof

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/aug1978/am_1928_1978.html 3/5
9/29/2016 A.M. No. 1928
lawyers and their regulation and supervision have been and are indisputably recognized as inherent judicial
functionsandresponsibilities,andtheauthoritiesholdingsucharelegion.14

In In Re Sparks (267 Ky. 93, 101 S.W. (2d) 194), in which the report of the Board of Bar Commissioners in a
disbarment proceeding was confirmed and disbarment ordered, the court, sustaining the Bar Integration Act of
Kentucky, said: "The power to regulate the conduct and qualifications of its officers does not depend upon
constitutional or statutory grounds. It is a power which is inherent in this court as a court appropriate, indeed
necessary,totheproperadministrationofjustice...theargumentthatthisisanarbitrarypowerwhichthecourtis
arrogatingtoitselforacceptingfromthelegislativelikewisemisconceivesthenatureoftheduty.Ithaslimitationsno
lessrealbecausetheyareinherent.ItisanunpleasanttasktositinjudgmentuponabrothermemberoftheBar,
particularly where, as here, the facts are disputed. It is a grave responsibility, to be assumed only with a
determination to uphold the Ideals and traditions of an honorable profession and to protect the public from
overreaching and fraud. The very burden of the duty is itself a guaranty that the power will not be misused or
prostituted...."

The Court's jurisdiction was greatly reinforced by our 1973 Constitution when it explicitly granted to the Court the
power to "Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice ... and the admission to the practice of law and the
integration of the Bar ... (Article X, Sec. 5(5) the power to pass upon the fitness of the respondent to remain a
memberofthelegalprofessionisindeedundoubtedlyvestedintheCourt.

WethusreachtheconclusionthattheprovisionsofRuleofCourt139AandoftheByLawsoftheIntegratedBarof
thePhilippinescomplainedofareneitherunconstitutionalnorillegal.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,itistheunanimoussenseoftheCourtthattherespondentMarcialA.Edillon
should be as he is hereby disbarred, and his name is hereby ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys of the
Court.

Fernando,Teehankee,Barredo,Makasiar,Antonio,MuozPalma,Aquino,Concepcion,Jr.,Santos,Fernandezand
Guerrero,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1AdoptedintheSupremeCourt'sResolution,promulgatedonJanuary9,1973,ordainingthe
integrationoftheBarofthePhilippines.

2114A.L.R.101.

3MemorandumofAuthoritiesontheConstitutionalityofBarIntegration,citedintheReportofthe
CommissionBarIntegrationontheIntegrationofthePhilippineBar,Nov.30,1972seealsoSupreme
CourtResolutionofJanuary9,1973,ordainingtheintegrationofthePhilippineBar.

4InreIntegratingtheBar,222Ark35,259S.W.2d114PetitionofFloridaStateBarAssociation,40
So.2d902PetitionofFloridaStateBarAssociation,134Fla.851,186So.280:InreEdwards,45
Idaho676,266P.665Commonwealthexrel.Wardvs.Harrington,266Ky.4198S.W.2d53Ayres
vs.Hadaway303Mich.589,6N.W.2d905PetitionforIntegrationofBarofMinnesota,216Minn.
195PetitionforIntegrationofBarofMinnesota,216Minn.195,12N.W.2d515Clarkvs.Austin,101
S.W.2d977InReIntegrationofNebraskaStateBarAssn.,133Neb.283,275N.W.265,114A.L.R.
151InreScott,53Nev.24,292291Bakervs.Varser,240N.C.260,82S.E.2d90InreIntegration
ofStateBarofOklahoma,185Okla,505,95P.2d113Stateexrel.Ricevs.Cozad,70S.Dak.193,
16N.W.2d484Campbellvs.ThirdDistrictCommitteeofVirginiaStateBar,179Va.244,18S.E.2d
883Lathropvs.Donahue,10Wis.2d230,102N.W.2d404.

5ANACTPROVIDINGFORTHEINTEGRATIONOFTHEPHILIPPINEBARANDAPPROPRIATING
FUNDSTHEREFOR,approvedonSeptember17,1971.

6InreUnificationofNewHampsireBar,248A.2d709InreGibson,35N.Mex.550,4P.2d643
Lathropvs.Donahue,10Wis.2d230,102N.W.2d404Lathropvs.Donahue,367U.S.820,6L.ed.
2d1191,81S.Ct.1826RailwaysEmployes'Dept.vs.Hanson,351U.S.225,100L.ed.1112,76S.
Ct.714.

7Diokno,JoseW.,"BarIntegrationASwordandaShieldforJustice"(ManorPress,Q.C.,1962)p.
17.

8FellersJames,"IntegrationoftheBarAloha!",JournaloftheAm.JudicatureSociety,Vol.47,No.
11(1964)p.256.9Lathropvs.Donahue,10Wis.2d230,102,N.W.2d404Lathropvs.Donahue,367
U.S.820,6L,ed.2d1191,81S.Ct.1826.

9.Lathropvs.Donohue,10Wis.,2d230,102,N.W.2d404Lathropvs.Donohue,367U.S.820,6L.
ed.2d1191,81S.Ct.1826.

10Hillvs.StateBarofCalifornia,97P.2d236Herronvs.StateBarofCalifornia,24Cal.53,147P.2d
543Carpentervs.StateBarofCalifornia,211Cal.358,295P.23InreMundy,202La.41,11SO.2d

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/aug1978/am_1928_1978.html 4/5
9/29/2016 A.M. No. 1928
398InreScott,53Nev.24,292P.291InrePlatz,60Nev.24,108P.2d858,InreGibson,35N.
Mex.550,4P.2d643Kelleyvs.StateBarofOklahoma,148Okla,282,298P.623.

11PetitionofFloridaStateBarAssociation,40So.2d902InreIntegrationofBarofHawaii,432P.2d
887PetitionforIntegrationofBarofMinnesota,216Minn.195,12N.W.2d515InreScott,53Nev.
24,292P.291InreUnificationofNewHampshireBar,248A.2d709InreGibson,35N.Mex.550,4
P.2d643StateBarofOklahomavs.McGhnee148Okla,219,298P.580Kelleyvs.StateBarof
Oklahoma,148Okla,282,298P.623Lathropvs.Donahue,10Wis.2d230,102N.W.2d404.

12InreGibson,4P.2d643.

ThefollowingwordsofJusticeHarlanareopposite:"TheobjectionwouldmakeeveryGovernmental
exactionthematerialofa'freespeech'issue.Eventheincometaxwouldbesuspect.Theobjection
wouldcarryustolengthsthathaveneverbeendreamedof.Theconscientiousobjector,ifhisliberties
weretothusextended,mightrefusetocontributetaxesinfurtheranceofwarorofanyotherend
condemnedbyhisconscienceasirreligiousorimmoralTherightofprivatejudgmenthasneveryet
beenexaltedabovethepowersandthecompulsionoftheagenciesofGovernment."(Concurring
opinionofHarlan,J,joinedbyFrankfurter,J.,inLathropvs.Donahue,367

U.S.820,6L.ed.21191,81S.Ct.1826,citingCardozo,J.withBrandersandStone,JJ.,concurring,in
Hamiltonvs.RegentsofUniv.ofCalifornia,293U.S.245,79L.ed.343,55S.Ct.197.)

13InreScott,53Nev.24,292P.291.

14BarFlunkersCase,50O.G.1602InreAguas,1Phil.1,andothers.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1978/aug1978/am_1928_1978.html 5/5