Case Number: 28

Case Title: In Re: Edillon

FACTS: Respondent Marcial A. edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Philippines.
On Nov 29, 1975 the IBP board of governors recommended to the court the removal of the
name of respondent for “stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues.” Said resolution was
submitted to the Court pursuant to par 2, section 24, article III of the IBP by laws. In his
response, Edillon reiterated his refusal to pay the membership fees due from him. He contends
that the provisions of Rule 139-A sec 1, 9 and 10 and Par 2, sec 24, article III of the IBP by-laws
are unconstitutional.

Respondent contends that he is being compelled to maintain his status as a lawyer in good
standing and that compelling him to pay deprives him of his right to liberty and property. He
also contends that it is against his freedom of association and that the court has no power to
remove his name from the roll of attorneys. Thus he states that these certain provisions in the
IBP by-laws and rules of court are void.

ISSUE: Whether or not the court can compel respondent Edillon to pay his annual membership
IBP dues

HELD: Yes. The Court stated that the provisions Edillon contends are constitutional. To compel a
lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of his constitutional freedom to
associate. He is not being forces to associate with anyone or meet with anyone and is just being
subjected to annual dues. The Court states that this is to further the State’s legitimate interest
in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require that the cost of improving the
profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program
— the lawyers. This is justified under the police power of the state for the common good and
general welfare. Lastly, the court has the jurisdiction over matters of admission, suspension,
disbarment which is states in the 1973 Constitution thus they can compel members of the IBP
to pay their annual dues.