In Re: Edillon, 84 SCRA 568 (AC 1928)

22JUL
FACTS:
Atty. Marcial Edillon was dibarred due to non-payment of his IBP dues, hence the petitioner on this case. He
claimed that the provisions of Sec. 10 of Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court is unconstitutional as he is being
compelled, as a precondition in maintaining his good standing as a lawyer, to pay and settle his dues to the
IBP. Petitioner stubbornly insisted his take and refused to admit full competence of the court in this matter.
But after some time in realization, his recalcitrance and defiance were gone in his subsequent
communication with the court. He appealed that his health, advanced age, and concern to his former clients
welfare be considered in his prayer so that he can again practice law.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Edillon should be reinstated as member of the bar.
HELD: YES.
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.

FACTS: The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The IBP
Board of Governors recommended to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of
Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court 139A and the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of
IBP, payment of membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same.
Edillon contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of hisconstitutional rights in the sense that
he is being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain 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 admitted personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the
rights to liberty and properly guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the respondent concludes the
above provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court may compel Atty. Edillion to pay his membership fee to the IBP.
HELD: The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which every lawyer must be a member of as
distinguished from bar associations in which membership is merely optional and voluntary. All lawyers are
subject to comply with the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar including payment a
reasonable annual fees as one of the requirements. The Rules of Court only compels him to pay his
annual dues and it is not in violation of hisconstitutional freedom to associate. Bar integration does not
compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not the meeting of his Integrated Bar
Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its election 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 States legitimate interest in
elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require thet the cost of the regulatory program the
lawyers.
Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the State. The 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 is not
void as unreasonable as arbitrary. Furthermore, the Court has jurisdiction over matters of admission,
suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation as part of its inherent judicial
functions and responsibilities thus the court may compel all members of the Integrated Bar to pay their
annual dues.