Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr. Requesting Exemption From Payment of IBP Dues, B.M.

No. 1370, May 9, 2005

Facts:
On September 22, 2004, 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. Atty. Cecilio Arevalo‘s
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 off
one‘s profession while in the Government service, also when he was in the USA the IBP dues
cannot extend to him.

On November 16, 2004, 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. It is maintained that there is no rule allowing the exemption, of payment
of annual dues as requested by Atty Arevalo, what is allowed is the voluntary termination and
reinstatement of membership. What he 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.

On February 25, 2005, in reply to the letter of the IBP, Atty. Arevalo questions the policy of the
IBP board of governors of the non-exemption in the payment of annual membership dues of
lawyers regardless of whether or not they are engaged in active or inactive practice. Asserting
that the said policy is a suffers constitutional infirmities, such as equal protection clause and the
due process clause.

Issue:
Whether or not, Atty. Arevalo is entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during the
time he was inactive in the practice of law?

Ruling:
No. The Integration of the Philippines Bar means that official unification of the entire lawyer
population, which requires membership and financial support of every attorney as condition
sine qua non to the practice of law and retention of his name in the Roll of attorneys of the
Supreme Court.
The Court stated that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Court, under its
constitutional power and duty to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of
law and in integration of the Philippine Bar. The fee required by the IBP is a necessary
consequence of membership in the IBP for the integration of the Philippine Bar to defray the
expenses of regulation of the profession, Lawyers, which no one is exempt.