LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO Y. AREVALO, JR.

, REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM

PAYMENT OF IBP DUES.
B.M. NO. 1370 l MAY 9, 2005

FACTS:

The petitioner, Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, wrote a letter to the Supreme Court (SC)
requesting for exemption of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) dues in the
amount of P12,035.00 for the years 1977-2005. He alleged that after being admitted to
the Philippine Bar, he worked in the Philippine Civil Service, and then migrated and
worked in the US until his retirement. He contends that he cannot be made to pay IBP
during his service in the Philippine Civil Service since the Civil Service Law prohibits the
practice of one’s profession while in the government service, and neither can he be
made to pay for the years while working in the US. He further argued that the
compulsory payment of the annual membership would be oppressive to him due to his
inactive status and he is without income derived from his law practice.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the petitioner is exempted from payment of his dues during the
time that he was inactive in the practice of law.
2. Whether or not the compulsory payment of the IBM dues would constitute
deprivation of property right without due process of law.

RATIO DECIDENDI:

1. No, A membership fee in the Bar association is an exaction for regulation. 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 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 ones membership in the IBP remains regardless of
the lack of practice of, or the type of practice, the member is engaged in.

2. No. Whether the practice of law is a property right, in the sense of its being one
that entitles the holder of a license to practice a profession, we do not here
pause to consider at length, as it [is] clear that under the police power of the
State, and under the necessary powers granted to the Court to perpetuate its
existence, the respondents 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[d], then a penalty designed
to enforce its payment, which penalty may be avoided altogether by payment, is
not void as unreasonable or arbitrary.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE, petitioner's request for exemption from payment of IBP dues is DENIED.
He is ordered to pay P12,035.00, the amount assessed by the IBP as membership fees
for the years 1977-2005, within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of
this decision, with a warning that failure to do so will merit his suspension from the
practice of law.

SO ORDERED.
 ISIDRA TING-DUMALI, complainant,
VS ATTY. ROLANDO S. TORRES, respondent.
A.C. NO. 5161 l APRIL 14, 2004

FACTS:

ISSUE:

DECIDENDI:

FALLO:

FACTS:

Isidra Ting-Dumali, complainant, is one of the six children of the late spouses Julita
Reynante and Vicente Ting. According to her, respondent Atty. Rolando Torres, being
her brother-in-law, took advantage of his relationship with her and her brothers and
immorally used his profession when he participated in, consented to, and failed to
advice against, the perjury committed by his wife Felicisima and his sister-in-law Miriam
when the two made it appear that they were the sole heirs of the late Julita Reynante
and Vicente Ting.

ISSUE:

WON respondent should be disbarred.

RULING:
Yes. Respondent’s acts or omissions reveal his moral flaws and doubtless bring
intolerable dishonor to the legal profession. The Court found respondent Atty. Rolando
Torres guilty of gross misconduct and violation of the lawyer’s oath, as well as Canons 1
and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, thereby rendering him unworthy of
continuing membership in the legal profession.

ARTEMIO ENDAYA, complainant

VS ATTY. WILFREDO OCA, respondent.
A.C. NO. 3967 l SEPTEMBER 3, 2003

FACTS:

ISSUE:

DECIDENDI:

FALLO:

ENDAYA v OCA
Facts:
A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Artemio Endaya and
his wife. An
answer was prepared by a Mr.Ramirez for the spouses.
At the beginning of the preliminary conference, spouses appeared without
counsel.
Endaya sought the services of the
Public Attorney’s Office. Atty. Oca was assigned to
handle the case.
At the continuation of the prelim conference, Oca filed motion for amendment of
answer.
Motion was denied.
The judge then ordered all parties to submit their affidavits and position
papers. The
court also said that 30 daysafter the submission of the last paper or upon
expiration of
the period for filing, judgment shall be rendered onthe case.
Oca failed to submit any affidavit or position paper.
Nonetheless, the complaint for unlawful detainer was dismissed because
those who
filed the case were not reallparties
-
in
-
interest.
The case was appealed to RTC. Oca failed to submit anything again. RTC
reversed the
MTC decision. Spouseswere ordered to v
acate the property and pay a certain amount
for rentals.
Endaya confronted Oca about the decision. Oca feigned that he did not
receive
anything. Upon checking with theclerk of court, Oca did indeed receive a
copy of the
decision (liar!). Hence this adm

inistrative complaint.

ISSUE:W /N Oca committed professional misconduct

es. Suspended for 2 months from practice of law.

Facts to show may problema talaga to si Atty. Oca:
o
In his comment, Oca put up the defense that he did not file any paper
in the MCTC
because it would justbe a repetition of the answer. Endaya filed his reply
which just
reiterated what he put in his complaint.
o
SC ordered Oca to file a rejoinder. Guess what, Oca once again failed to file
anything.
Oca explained thathe failed
to file a rejoinder because he believed in good faith that it
was no longer necessary.
o
In the IBP investigation, Oca once again failed to submit anything.
Oca only appeared once in the MCTC and practically abandoned the
spouses
thereafter.
The fact
s show that Oca failed to employ every legal and honorable means to advance
the cause of his client. Forintentionally failing to submit the pleadings
required by the
court, respondent practically closed the door to thepossibility of putting up a fair
fight
for
his client.
Oca cannot just appear only once for the spouses. A lawyer continues to be a
counsel
of record until the lawyer
-
client relationship is terminated.
Oca’s
story shows his appalling indifference to his clients’ cause, deplorable lack of
respect for the courts and abrazen disregard of his duties as a lawyer.
Bakit hindi disbarred?
o
Endaya misrepresented that the original answer was prepared by a non
-
lawyer
when in
fact it wasprepared by a lawyer
o
Endaya assured Oca that he had strong evidence to support their case. Endaya
never
gave anything toOca to support their claim.
o
The PAO is burdened with a heavy caseload.