Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A.M. No.

1928 August 3, 1978 In the Matter o the I!P Me"#ersh$% &ues &e'$n(uen)* o Att*. MARCIA+ A. E&I+ION ,I!P A-"$n$strat$.e Case No. M&&/10 RESOLUTION

:ebruar! %;' (&)/' reiteratin" his refusal to pa! the $e$bership fees due fro$ hi$ On March %' (&)/' the Court re1uired the IBP President and the IBP Board of -o#ernors to repl! to Edillon3s co$$ent7 on March %6' (&)/' the! sub$itted a <oint repl! Thereafter' the case 4as set for hearin" on 5une ;' (&)/ After the hearin"' the parties 4ere re1uired to sub$it $e$oranda in a$plification of their oral ar"u$ents The $atter 4as thenceforth sub$itted for resolution At the threshold' a painsta8in" scrutin! of the respondent3s pleadin"s 4ould sho4 that the propriet! and necessit! of the inte"ration of the Bar of the Philippines are in essence conceded The respondent' ho4e#er' ob<ects to particular features of Rule of Court (;&.A +hereinafter referred to as the Court Rule, 1 = in accordance 4ith 4hich the Bar of the Philippines 4as inte"rated = and to the pro#isions of par %' Section %6' Article III' of the IBP B!.La4s +hereinabo#e cited, The authorit! of the IBP Board of -o#ernors to reco$$end to the Supre$e Court the re$o#al of a delin1uent $e$ber3s na$e fro$ the Roll of Attorne!s is found in par % Section %6' Article Ill of the IBP B!.La4s +supra,' 4hereas the authorit! of the Court to issue the order applied for is found in Section (> of the Court Rule' 4hich reads7 SEC (> Effect of non-payment of dues. Sub<ect to the pro#isions of Section (% of this Rule' default in the pa!$ent of annual dues for si? $onths shall 4arrant suspension of $e$bership in the Inte"rated Bar' and default in such pa!$ent for one !ear shall be a "round for the re$o#al of the na$e of the delin1uent $e$ber fro$ the Roll of Attorne!s The all.enco$passin"' all.inclusi#e scope of $e$bership in the IBP is stated in these 4ords of the Court Rule7 SECTION ( Organization = There is hereb! or"ani@ed an official national bod! to be 8no4n as the 3Inte"rated Bar of the Philippines'3 co$posed of all persons 4hose na$es no4 appear or $a! hereafter be included in the Roll of Attorne!s of the Supre$e Court The obli"ation to pa! $e$bership dues is couched in the follo4in" 4ords of the Court Rule7
bel. 1

CASTRO, C.J.: The respondent Marcial A Edillon is a dul! licensed practicin" attorne! in the Philippines On No#e$ber %&' (&)*' the Inte"rated Bar of the Philippines +IBP for short, Board of -o#ernors unani$ousl! adopted Resolution No )*./* in Ad$inistrati#e Case No M00.( +In the Matter of the Me$bership 0ues 0elin1uenc! of Att! Marcial A Edillon, reco$$endin" to the Court the re$o#al of the na$e of the respondent fro$ its Roll of Attorne!s for 2stubborn refusal to pa! his $e$bership dues2 to the IBP since the latter3s constitution not4ithstandin" due notice On 5anuar! %(' (&)/' the IBP' throu"h its then President Liliano B Neri' sub$itted the said resolution to the Court for consideration and appro#al' pursuant to para"raph %' Section %6' Article III of the B!.La4s of the IBP' 4hich reads7 Should the delin1uenc! further continue until the follo4in" 5une %&' the Board shall pro$ptl! in1uire into the cause or causes of the continued delin1uenc! and ta8e 4hate#er action it shall dee$ appropriate' includin" a reco$$endation to the Supre$e Court for the re$o#al of the delin1uent $e$ber3s na$e fro$ the Roll of Attorne!s Notice of the action ta8en shall be sent b! re"istered $ail to the $e$ber and to the Secretar! of the Chapter concerned On 5anuar! %)' (&)/' the Court re1uired the respondent to co$$ent on the resolution and letter ad#erted to abo#e9 he sub$itted his co$$ent on

SEC & Membership dues E#er! $e$ber of the Inte"rated Bar shall pa! such annual dues as the Board of -o#ernors shall deter$ine 4ith the appro#al of the Supre$e Court The core of the respondent3s ar"u$ents is that the abo#e pro#isions constitute an in#asion of his constitutional ri"hts in the sense that he is bein" co$pelled' as a pre.condition to $aintainin" his status as a la4!er in "ood standin"' to be a $e$ber of the IBP and to pa! the correspondin" dues' and that as a conse1uence of this co$pelled financial support of the said or"ani@ation to 4hich he is ad$ittedl! personall! anta"onistic' he is bein" depri#ed of the ri"hts to libert! and propert! "uaranteed to hi$ b! the Constitution Aence' the respondent concludes' the abo#e pro#isions of the Court Rule and of the IBP B!.La4s are #oid and of no le"al force and effect The respondent si$ilarl! 1uestions the <urisdiction of the Court to stri8e his na$e fro$ the Roll of Attorne!s' contendin" that the said $atter is not a$on" the <usticiable cases triable b! the Court but is rather of an 2ad$inistrati#e nature pertainin" to an ad$inistrati#e bod! 2 The case at bar is not the first one that has reached the Court relatin" to constitutional issues that ine#itabl! and ine?tricabl! co$e up to the surface 4hene#er atte$pts are $ade to re"ulate the practice of la4' define the conditions of such practice' or re#o8e the license "ranted for the e?ercise of the le"al profession The $atters here co$plained of are the #er! sa$e issues raised in a pre#ious case before the Court' entitled 2Ad$inistrati#e Case No *%/' In the Matter of the Petition for the Inte"ration of the Bar of the Philippines' Ro$an O@aeta' et al ' Petitioners 2 The Court e?hausti#el! considered all these $atters in that case in its Resolution ordainin" the inte"ration of the Bar of the Philippines' pro$ul"ated on 5anuar! &' (&); The Court there $ade the unani$ous pronounce$ent that it 4as full! con#inced' after a thorou"h"oin" conscientious stud! of all the ar"u$ents adduced in Ad$ Case No *%/ and the authoritati#e $aterials and the $ass of factual data contained in the e?hausti#e Report of the Co$$ission on Bar Inte"ration' that the inte"ration of the Philippine Bar is 3perfectl! constitutional and le"all! unob<ectionable3 Be that as it $a!' 4e no4 restate briefl! the posture of the Court An 2Inte"rated Bar2 is a State.or"ani@ed Bar' to 4hich e#er! la4!er $ust belon"' as distin"uished fro$ bar associations or"ani@ed b! indi#idual la4!ers the$sel#es' $e$bership in 4hich is #oluntar! Inte"ration of the Bar is essentiall! a process b! 4hich e#er! $e$ber of the Bar is afforded

an opportunit! to do his share in carr!in" out the ob<ecti#es of the Bar as 4ell as obli"ed to bear his portion of its responsibilities Or"ani@ed b! or under the direction of the State' an inte"rated Bar is an official national bod! of 4hich all la4!ers are re1uired to be $e$bers The! are' therefore' sub<ect to all the rules prescribed for the "o#ernance of the Bar' includin" the re1uire$ent of pa!$ent of a reasonable annual fee for the effecti#e dischar"e of the purposes of the Bar' and adherence to a code of professional ethics or professional responsibilit! breach of 4hich constitutes sufficient reason for in#esti"ation b! the Bar and' upon proper cause appearin"' a reco$$endation for discipline or disbar$ent of the offendin" $e$ber 2 The inte"ration of the Philippine Bar 4as ob#iousl! dictated b! o#erridin" considerations of public interest and public 4elfare to such an e?tent as $ore than constitutionall! and le"all! <ustifies the restrictions that inte"ration i$poses upon the personal interests and personal con#enience of indi#idual la4!ers 3 Apropos to the abo#e' it $ust be stressed that all le"islation directin" the inte"ration of the Bar ha#e been unifor$l! and uni#ersall! sustained as a #alid e?ercise of the police po4er o#er an i$portant profession The practice of la4 is not a #ested ri"ht but a pri#ile"e' a pri#ile"e $oreo#er clothed 4ith public interest because a la4!er o4es substantial duties not onl! to his client' but also to his brethren in the profession' to the courts' and to the nation' and ta8es part in one of the $ost i$portant functions of the State = the ad$inistration of <ustice = as an officer of the court 1 The practice of la4 bein" clothed 4ith public interest' the holder of this pri#ile"e $ust sub$it to a de"ree of control for the co$$on "ood' to the e?tent of the interest he has created As the U S Supre$e Court throu"h Mr 5ustice Roberts e?plained' the e?pression 2affected 4ith a public interest2 is the e1ui#alent of 2sub<ect to the e?ercise of the police po4er2 +Nebbia #s Ne4 Bor8' %&( U S *>%, Chen' therefore' Con"ress enacted Republic Act No /;&) 2 authori@in" the Supre$e Court to 2adopt rules of court to effect the inte"ration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit'2 it did so in the e?ercise of the para$ount police po4er of the State The Act3s a#o4al is to 2raise the standards of the le"al profession' i$pro#e the ad$inistration of <ustice' and enable the Bar to dischar"e its public responsibilit! $ore effecti#el! 2 Aence' the Con"ress in enactin" such Act' the Court in ordainin" the inte"ration of the Bar throu"h its Resolution pro$ul"ated on 5anuar! &' (&);' and the President of the Philippines in decreein" the constitution of the IBP into a bod! corporate throu"h Presidential 0ecree No (D( dated Ma! 6' (&);' 4ere pro$pted b! funda$ental considerations of public 4elfare and $oti#ated b! a desire to $eet the de$ands of pressin" public necessit!
bel. 1

The State' in order to pro$ote the "eneral 4elfare' $a! interfere 4ith and re"ulate personal libert!' propert! and occupations Persons and propert! $a! be sub<ected to restraints and burdens in order to secure the "eneral prosperit! and 4elfare of the State +U S #s -o$e@ 5esus' ;( Phil %(D,' for' as the Latin $a?i$ "oes' 2Salus populi est supre$e le? 2 The public welfare is the supreme law To this funda$ental principle of "o#ern$ent the ri"hts of indi#iduals are subordinated Libert! is a blessin" 4ithout 4hich life is a $iser!' but libert! should not be $ade to pre#ail o#er authorit! because then societ! 4in fall into anarch! +Calalan" #s Cillia$s' )> Phil )%/, It is an undoubted po4er of the State to restrain so$e indi#iduals fro$ all freedo$' and all indi#iduals fro$ so$e freedo$ But the $ost co$pellin" ar"u$ent sustainin" the constitutionalit! and #alidit! of Bar inte"ration in the Philippines is the e?plicit une1ui#ocal "rant of precise po4er to the Supre$e Court b! Section * +*, of Article E of the (&); Constitution of the Philippines' 4hich reads7 Sec * The Supre$e Court shall ha#e the follo4in" po4ers7 ??? ??? ??? +*, Pro$ul"ate rules concernin" pleadin"' practice' and pro procedure in all courts' and the ad$ission to the practice of la4 and the inte"ration of the Bar ' and Section ( of Republic Act No /;&)' 4hich reads7 SECTION ( Cithin t4o !ears fro$ the appro#al of this Act' the Supre$e Court $a! adopt rules of Court to effect the inte"ration of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise the standards of the le"al profession' i$pro#e the ad$inistration of <ustice' and enable the Bar to dischar"e its public responsibilit! $ore effecti#el! Fuite apart fro$ the abo#e' let it be stated that e#en 4ithout the enablin" Act +Republic Act No /;&),' and loo8in" solel! to the lan"ua"e of the pro#ision of the Constitution "rantin" the Supre$e Court the po4er 2to pro$ul"ate rules concernin" pleadin"' practice and procedure in all courts' and the ad$ission to the practice of la4'2 it at once beco$es indubitable that this constitutional declaration #ests the Supre$e Court 4ith plenar! po4er in all cases re"ardin" the ad$ission to and super#ision of the practice of la4 Thus' 4hen the respondent Edillon entered upon the le"al profession' his practice of la4 and his e?ercise of the said profession' 4hich affect the societ! at lar"e' 4ere +and are, sub<ect to the po4er of the bod! politic to

re1uire hi$ to confor$ to such re"ulations as $i"ht be established b! the proper authorities for the co$$on "ood' e#en to the e?tent of interferin" 4ith so$e of his liberties If he did not 4ish to sub$it hi$self to such reasonable interference and re"ulation' he should not ha#e clothed the public 4ith an interest in his concerns On this score alone' the case for the respondent $ust alread! fall The issues bein" of constitutional di$ension' ho4e#er' 4e no4 concisel! deal 4ith the$ seriatim ( The first ob<ection posed b! the respondent is that the Court is 4ithout po4er to co$pel hi$ to beco$e a $e$ber of the Inte"rated Bar of the Philippines' hence' Section ( of the Court Rule is unconstitutional for it i$pin"es on his constitutional ri"ht of freedo$ to associate +and not to associate, Our ans4er is7 To co$pel a la4!er to be a $e$ber of the Inte"rated Bar is not #iolati#e of his constitutional freedo$ to associate 3 Inte"ration does not $a8e a la4!er a $e$ber of an! "roup of 4hich he is not alread! a $e$ber Ae beca$e a $e$ber of the Bar 4hen he passed the Bar e?a$inations 7 All that inte"ration actuall! does is to pro#ide an official national or"ani@ation for the 4ell.defined but unor"ani@ed and incohesi#e "roup of 4hich e#er! la4!er is a read! a $e$ber 8 Bar inte"ration does not co$pel the la4!er to associate 4ith an!one Ae is free to attend or not attend the $eetin"s of his Inte"rated Bar Chapter or #ote or refuse to #ote in its elections as he chooses The onl! co$pulsion to 4hich he is sub<ected is the pa!$ent of annual dues The Supre$e Court' in order to further the State3s le"iti$ate interest in ele#atin" the 1ualit! of professional le"al ser#ices' $a! re1uire that the cost of i$pro#in" the profession in this fashion be shared b! the sub<ects and beneficiaries of the re"ulator! pro"ra$ = the la4!ers 9 Assu$in" that the 1uestioned pro#ision does in a sense co$pel a la4!er to be a $e$ber of the Inte"rated Bar' such co$pulsion is <ustified as an e?ercise of the police po4er of the State 14 % The second issue posed b! the respondent is that the pro#ision of the Court Rule re1uirin" pa!$ent of a $e$bership fee is #oid Ce see nothin" in the Constitution that prohibits the Court' under its constitutional po4er and dut! to pro$ul"ate rules concernin" the ad$ission to the practice of la4 and the inte"ration of the Philippine Bar +Article E' Section * of the (&); Constitution, = 4hich po4er the respondent ac8no4led"es = fro$ re1uirin" $e$bers of a pri#ile"ed class' such as la4!ers are' to pa! a reasonable fee to4ard defra!in" the e?penses of re"ulation of the profession to 4hich the! belon" It is 1uite apparent that the fee is indeed

bel. 1

i$posed as a re"ulator! $easure' desi"ned to raise funds for carr!in" out the ob<ecti#es and purposes of inte"ration 11 ; The respondent further ar"ues that the enforce$ent of the penalt! pro#isions 4ould a$ount to a depri#ation of propert! 4ithout due process and hence infrin"es on one of his constitutional ri"hts Chether the practice of la4 is a propert! ri"ht' in the sense of its bein" one that entitles the holder of a license to practice a profession' 4e do not here pause to consider at len"th' as it clear that under the police po4er of the State' and under the necessar! po4ers "ranted to the Court to perpetuate its e?istence' the respondent3s ri"ht to practise la4 before the courts of this countr! should be and is a $atter sub<ect to re"ulation and in1uir! And' if the po4er to i$pose the fee as a re"ulator! $easure is reco"ni@e' then a penalt! desi"ned to enforce its pa!$ent' 4hich penalt! $a! be a#oided alto"ether b! pa!$ent' is not #oid as unreasonable or arbitrar! 12 But 4e $ust here e$phasi@e that the practice of la4 is not a propert! ri"ht but a $ere pri#ile"e' 13 and as such $ust bo4 to the inherent re"ulator! po4er of the Court to e?act co$pliance 4ith the la4!er3s public responsibilities 6 Relati#e to the issue of the po4er andGor <urisdiction of the Supre$e Court to stri8e the na$e of a la4!er fro$ its Roll of Attorne!s' it is sufficient to state that the $atters of ad$ission' suspension' disbar$ent and reinstate$ent of la4!ers and their re"ulation and super#ision ha#e been and are indisputabl! reco"ni@ed as inherent <udicial functions and responsibilities' and the authorities holdin" such are le"ion 11 In In e !par"s +%/) H! &;' (>( S C +%d, (&6,' in 4hich the report of the Board of Bar Co$$issioners in a disbar$ent proceedin" 4as confir$ed and disbar$ent ordered' the court' sustainin" the Bar Inte"ration Act of Hentuc8!' said7 2The po4er to re"ulate the conduct and 1ualifications of its officers does not depend upon constitutional or statutor! "rounds It is a po4er 4hich is inherent in this court as a court = appropriate' indeed necessar!' to the proper ad$inistration of <ustice the ar"u$ent that this is an arbitrar! po4er 4hich the court is arro"atin" to itself or acceptin" fro$ the le"islati#e li8e4ise $isconcei#es the nature of the dut! It has li$itations no less real because the! are inherent It is an unpleasant tas8 to sit in <ud"$ent upon a brother $e$ber of the Bar' particularl! 4here' as here' the facts are disputed It is a "ra#e responsibilit!' to be assu$ed onl! 4ith a deter$ination to uphold the Ideals and traditions of an honorable profession and to protect the public fro$ o#erreachin" and fraud The #er! burden of the dut! is itself a "uarant! that the po4er 4ill not be $isused or prostituted 2 The Court3s <urisdiction 4as "reatl! reinforced b! our (&); Constitution 4hen it e?plicitl! "ranted to the Court the po4er to 2Pro$ul"ate rules concernin" pleadin"' practice and the ad$ission to the practice of la4

and the inte"ration of the Bar +Article E' Sec *+*, the po4er to pass upon the fitness of the respondent to re$ain a $e$ber of the le"al profession is indeed undoubtedl! #ested in the Court Ce thus reach the conclusion that the pro#isions of Rule of Court (;&.A and of the B!.La4s of the Inte"rated Bar of the Philippines co$plained of are neither unconstitutional nor ille"al CAERE:ORE' pre$ises considered' it is the unani$ous sense of the Court that the respondent Marcial A Edillon should be as he is hereb! disbarred' and his na$e is hereb! ordered stric8en fro$ the Roll of Attorne!s of the Court #ernando$ Teehan"ee$ %arredo$ Ma"asiar$ Antonio$ Mu&oz 'alma$ A(uino$ )oncepcion$ *r.$ !antos$ #ernandez and +uerrero$ **.$ concur.

bel. 1

5a)ts6

The respondent Marcial A Edillon is a dul! licensed practicin" attorne! in the Philippines The IBP Board of -o#ernors reco$$ended to the Court the re$o#al of the na$e of the respondent fro$ its Roll of Attorne!s for Istubborn refusal to pa! his $e$bership duesJ to the IBP since the latterKs constitution not4ithstandin" due notice

Edilion contends that the pro#ision pro#idin" for the IBP dues constitute an in#asion of his constitutional ri"hts in the sense that he is bein" co$pelled' as a pre.condition to $aintainin" his status as a la4!er in "ood standin"' to be a $e$ber of the IBP and to pa! the correspondin" dues' and that as a conse1uence of this co$pelled financial support of the said or"ani@ation to 4hich he is ad$ittedl! personall! anta"onistic' he is bein" depri#ed of the ri"hts to libert! and propert! "uaranteed to hi$ b! the Constitution Aence' the respondent concludes' the abo#e pro#isions of the Court Rule and of the IBP B!.La4s are #oid and of no le"al force and effect

Issue6

CON the pa!$ent of IBP dues suffer constitutional infir$it!L NO

Aeld7

All le"islation directin" the inte"ration of the Bar ha#e been unifor$l! and uni#ersall! sustained as a #alid e?ercise of the police po4er o#er an In the Matter o MARCIA+ A.M. No. 1928 August 3, 1978 the I!P Me"#ersh$% &ues &e'$n(uen)* o A. Att*. i$portant profession

E&I+ION

$oreo#er clothed 4ith public interest because a la4!er o4es substantial

bel. 1

The practice of la4 is not a #ested ri"ht but a pri#ile"e' a pri#ile"e

duties not onl! to his client' but also to his brethren in the profession' to the courts' and to the nation' and ta8es part in one of the $ost i$portant functions of the State = the ad$inistration of <ustice = as an officer of the court

desi"ned to enforce its pa!$ent' 4hich penalt! $a! be a#oided alto"ether b! pa!$ent' is not #oid as unreasonable or arbitrar!

Chen the respondent Edillon entered upon the le"al profession' his practice of la4 and his e?ercise of the said profession' 4hich affect the societ! at lar"e' 4ere +and are, sub<ect to the po4er of the bod! politic to re1uire hi$ to confor$ to such re"ulations as $i"ht be established b! the proper authorities for the co$$on "ood' e#en to the e?tent of interferin" 4ith so$e of his liberties If he did not 4ish to sub$it hi$self to such reasonable interference and re"ulation' he should not ha#e clothed the public 4ith an interest in his concerns

To co$pel a la4!er to be a $e$ber of the Inte"rated Bar is not #iolati#e of his constitutional freedo$ to associate

Bar inte"ration does not co$pel the la4!er to associate 4ith an!one Ae is free to attend or not attend the $eetin"s of his Inte"rated Bar Chapter or #ote or refuse to #ote in its elections as he chooses The onl! co$pulsion to 4hich he is sub<ected is the pa!$ent of annual dues The Supre$e Court' in order to further the StateKs le"iti$ate interest in ele#atin" the 1ualit! of professional le"al ser#ices' $a! re1uire that the cost of i$pro#in" the profession in this fashion be shared b! the sub<ects and beneficiaries of the re"ulator! pro"ra$ = the la4!ers

Such co$pulsion is <ustified as an e?ercise of the police po4er of the State Ch!L The ri"ht to practise la4 before the courts of this countr! should be and is a $atter sub<ect to re"ulation and in1uir! And' if the po4er to i$pose the fee as a re"ulator! $easure is reco"ni@e' then a penalt!
bel. 1