In Re: Edillon 84 SCRA 554 (1978)

Facts: This is an administrative case against Edillon who refuses to pay his IBP membership
dues assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A 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. He contends that the stated provisions
constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights of being compelled to be a member of the IBP
in order to practice his profession and thus deprives his rights to liberty and property and
thereby null and void.

Issue: Whether or not it assailed provisions constitutes a deprivation of liberty and property of

the respondent.

Held: The court held that the IBP is a State-organized Bar as distinguished from bar
associations that are organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership of which is
voluntary. The IBP however is an official national body of which all lawyers must be a member
and are subjected to the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar which includes payment
of reasonable annual fee for the purpose of carrying out its objectives and implementation of
regulations in the practice of law. The provisions assailed does not infringe the constitutional
rights of the respondent as it is a valid exercise of police power necessary to perpetuate its
existence with regulatory measures to implement. The name of Edillon was stricken out from the
rolls of attorney for being a delinquent member of the bar.

In Re Garcia 2 SCRA 985

Facts:

Arturo E. Garcia,has applied for admission to the practice of law in the phils. without
submitting to the required bar examinations. In his verified petition, he avers among others
that he is a filipino citizen born in bacolod city of filipino parentage. He finished Bachillerato
Superior in spain. He was allowed to practice law profession in spain under the provision of
the treaty on academic degrees and the exercise of profession between the republic of the
phils.

Issue:

Whether treaty can modify regulations governing admission to the phil. bar.
Held:

The court resolved to deny the petition. The provision of the treaty on academic degrees
between the republic of the phils. and spanish state cannot be invoked by the applicant. said
treaty was intende to govern filipino citizens desiring to practice their profession in spain.
The treaty could not have been intended to modify the laws and regulations governing
admission to the practice of law in the phils., for the reason the executive may not encroach
upon the constitutional prerogative of the supreme court to promulgate rules for admission to
the practice of the law in the phils. The power to repeal, alter or supplement such rules being
reserved only to the congress of the phils.
Rhydel's Blog at 6:01 PM

Landmark Case: In Re Mallare, A.M. No. 533 September

12, 1974 (Case Digest)
In Re Mallare, A.M. No. 533 September 12, 1974

Facts

Mallare’s father Esteban was the illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother,
and believed himself to be Chinese. Mallare became a lawyer, but his admission to the bar
was revoked because his citizenship was questionable.

Issue

Is Mallare a Filipino citizen?

Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the revocation after finding that Esteban was a Filipino because
his mother was not married to his Chinese father. Furthermore, when Mallare came of age, he
registered as a voter and exercised his right of suffrage. The Court considered these acts to
be enough to show that Mallare had elected Filipino citizenship, without needing any formal
declaration on his part.