100%(1)100% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (1 suara)
484 tayangan1 halaman
Atty. Cecilio Arevalo Jr. sought exemption from paying P12,035 in IBP dues from 1977-2005, arguing that as a civil servant from 1962-1986 and while working in the US from 1986-2003, he was not practicing law. However, the IBP argued that membership obligations include annual dues regardless of practice. The Court agreed, finding that dues support IBP operations and integration of the Bar, and payment is required as long as one remains an IBP member. While inconvenient, this requirement is outweighed by benefits of an integrated Bar and no members are exempt from dues.
Atty. Cecilio Arevalo Jr. sought exemption from paying P12,035 in IBP dues from 1977-2005, arguing that as a civil servant from 1962-1986 and while working in the US from 1986-2003, he was not practicing law. However, the IBP argued that membership obligations include annual dues regardless of practice. The Court agreed, finding that dues support IBP operations and integration of the Bar, and payment is required as long as one remains an IBP member. While inconvenient, this requirement is outweighed by benefits of an integrated Bar and no members are exempt from dues.
Atty. Cecilio Arevalo Jr. sought exemption from paying P12,035 in IBP dues from 1977-2005, arguing that as a civil servant from 1962-1986 and while working in the US from 1986-2003, he was not practicing law. However, the IBP argued that membership obligations include annual dues regardless of practice. The Court agreed, finding that dues support IBP operations and integration of the Bar, and payment is required as long as one remains an IBP member. While inconvenient, this requirement is outweighed by benefits of an integrated Bar and no members are exempt from dues.
FACTS: In his letter, Atty. Cecilo Arevalo, Jr. sought the exemption from the payment of IBP dues in the amount of P12,035.00 in the years between 1977-2005. His contention is that when he was admitted in the Philippines Bar in 1961, he became part of the Philippines Civil Service from 1962 to 1986, and then migrated to and worked in, the USA until his retirement in 2003. He maintained that he cannot be made to pay the IBP dues because, when he is working in the Philippine Civil Service, the Civil Service Law prohibits the practice of one’s profession while in the Government service, and neither can he be assessed for the years when he was working in the USA. The IBP submitted its comment, that the membership in the IBP is not based on the actual practice of law; that a lawyer continues to be included in the roll of attorneys as long as he continues to be a member of the IBP; that one of the obligations of a member is the payment of annual dues as determined by the IBP board of governors; the policy of the IBP board of governors of no exemption of payment of annual dues is but an implementation of the Court’s directives for all members of the IBP to help defray the cost of integration of the Bar. What Atty. Arevalo could have done was to inform the secretary of IBP of his intention to stay abroad, so that his membership in the IBP could have been terminated, thus, reliving him from his obligation to pay dues could have been stopped. Atty. Arevalo questions the policy of the IBP board of governors of the non-exemption in the payment of annual membership dues, asserting that the said policy a suffers from constitutional infirmities, such as equal protection clause and the due process clause. He claims that it is oppressive to him considering that he has been in an inactive status and is without income derived from his law practice.
ISSUE: Whether or nor petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during the time that he was inactive in the practice of law that is, when he was in the Civil Service from 1962-1986 and he was working abroad from 1986-2003.
HELD: NO. The court agreed with the IBP.
For the court to prescribe dues to be paid by the members does not mean that the Court is attempting to levy a tax. A membership fee in the Bar association is an exaction for regulation, while tax purpose of a tax is a revenue. If the judiciary has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it follows that as an incident to regulation, it may impose a membership fee for that purpose. It would not be possible to put on an integrated Bar program without means to defray the expenses. The doctrine of implied powers necessarily carries with it the power to impose such exaction. The public interest promoted by the integration of the Bar far outweighs the slight inconvenience to a member resulting from his required payment of the annual dues. Thus, payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the IBP, of which no one is exempt. This means that the compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as one's membership in the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of practice, the member is engaged in. It must be borne in mind that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, one of which is the payment of membership dues.