Case:

In Re: IBP Elections

B.M. No: 491│Date: October 6, 1989 │Ponente: Per Curiam
Digested by: Stephanie Dawn Mondejar
FACTS:
The House Delegates elected and announced the national officers of the IBP on June 3, 1989.
The newly elected officers were scheduled to take the oath of office before the Supreme Court en
banc the following day, but that was postponed due to the numerous reports that some members
of the Court received from attorneys who had observed or participated in the proceeding and the
negative comments that were published in the newspaper columns about the intense campaigning
and excessive spending by the candidates, including the three main candidates for the office of
the President of the Association, namely, Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and Violeto
Drilon. The alleged violations for the stated candidates consisted of the usage of government
planes and the officious intervention of certain public officials to influence the voting.
As a result, the Supreme Court conducted examinations into the reports' authenticity as part of its
oversight of the IBP. The committee formed to conduct the inquiry was composed of 49
witnesses. Ten infractions were discovered during the formal inquiry, which was carried out by
the investigative committee and are the following:
1. Prohibited campaigning and solicitation of votes by the candidates for president,
executive vice-president, the officers of candidate the House of Delegates and Board of
Governors.
2. Use of PNB plane in the campaign
3. Formation of tickets and single slates.
4. Giving free transportation to out-of-town delegates and alternates.
5. Giving free hotel accommodations, food, drinks, entertainment to delegates.
6. Campaigning by labor officials for Atty. Violeta Drilon
7. Paying the dues or other indebtedness of any number (Sec. 14[e], IBP BY-Laws).
8. Distribution of materials other than bio-data of not more than one page of legal size sheet
of paper (Sec. 14[a], IBP By-Laws).
9. Causing distribution of such statement to be done by persons other than those authorized
by the officer presiding at the election (Sec. 14[b], IBP By-Laws).
10. Inducing or influencing a member to withhold his vote, or to vote for or against a
candidate (Sec. 14[e], IBP BY-Laws).
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a violation of the IBP by-laws and if there is sufficient ground for the
Supreme Court to suspend the oath taking of the officials.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the candidates and many of the participants in that election
violated not only the IBP By-Laws but also the ethical rules of the legal profession, which
impose on all lawyers the duty to "promote respect for law and legal processes" and to refrain
from "activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system" as a
counterpoint to their duty to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws (Rule 1.02, Canon 1,
Code of Professional Responsibility). When lawyers, who are supposed to be the protectors of
the law, break the laws themselves and carelessly disregard the regulations that the IBP
established for their observance, respect for the law is severely damaged. The unseemly intensity
with which the candidates competed for the association's presidency diminished the honor of the
legal profession. T It is unquestionably true that the display of lawyers offering or accepting
bribes in order to gain a vote did not promote the profession's honor or enhance public opinion of
it.
 Case:
In the Matter of IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Edillon
A.C. No: 1928│Date: December 19, 1980 │Ponente: Fernando, C.J.
Digested by: Stephanie Dawn Mondejar
FACTS:
Martial A. Edillon, the respondent, holds a valid license to practice law in the Philippines. The
Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) unanimously approved a
Resolution recommending to the Court the removal of the respondent's name from its Roll of
Attorneys due to his "stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues" to the IBP. The respondent
submitted his statement, in which he reiterated his reluctance to pay the membership fees that
were due to him, after the Court ordered him to comment on the resolution. The respondent's
main contention is that the aforementioned provisions violate his constitutional rights because
they require him to join the IBP and pay the associated dues in order to continue practicing law
in good standing. He also claims that because of his financial support of this organization, which
he is admittedly personally opposed to, he is being denied his freedom of speech. The respondent
claims that these facts render the Court Rule and IBP By-Laws' provisions invalid and devoid of
all legal significance. Additionally, the respondent challenges the court's authority to remove his
name from the Roll of Attorneys, arguing that the case at hand is of a "administrative nature
belonging to an administrative body" and is therefore not one of the cases that can be tried by the
court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court is without power to compel Edillon in becoming a member of the IBP.
RULING:
It is not against Edillon's constitutional right to association to require him to join the Integrated
Bar. Integration into the bar does not require the lawyer to associate with anyone. He has the
choice as to whether or not he will attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter and whether
he will vote in the elections held there. Payment of yearly dues is the sole requirement he must
abide by. The Supreme Court may mandate that the cost of this type of profession improvement
be covered by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulation program, the lawyers, in order to
further the State's legitimate interest in raising the caliber of professional legal services. It should
be focused that Canon 7 states, “A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar”, therefore Edillon is still
required to pay his yearly dues due to this. However, if it is assumed that the disputed clause
does in fact require a lawyer to belong to the Integrated Bar, then such a requirement is
justifiable as a use of the State's police power.
 Case:
Letter of Atty. Arevalo, Jr.
Requesting Exemption from Payment of IBP Dues
B.M. No: 1370│Date: May 9, 2005 │Ponente: Chico-Nazario, J.
Digested by: Stephanie Dawn Mondejar
FACTS:
Atty. Cecilio Arevalo, Jr. requested a waiver of the obligation to pay P12,035.00 in IBP dues for
the period from 1977 to 2005. His claim is that after receiving admission to the Philippines Bar
in 1961, he served in the country's civil service from 1962 to 1986, emigrated to the USA, and
continued working there until his retirement in 2003. He argued that he cannot be forced to pay
IBP dues since the Civil Service Law forbids people from practicing their professions while
employed by the government, and he also cannot be assessed for the years he spent working in
the USA.
The IBP submitted its comment, stating that membership in the IBP is not dependent on the
actual practice of law, that a lawyer remains listed on the roll of attorneys as long as he or she
remains 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, and that the IBP board of governors' policy of
not allowing any exceptions for the payment of annual dues is merely an application of the
Court. In order for his membership in the IBP to be canceled and his release from the
requirement to pay dues to be terminated, Atty. Arevalo should have informed the IBP secretary
of his plan to stay abroad.
Atty. Arevalo disputes the IBP board of governors' policy of not exempting any individuals from
paying annual membership dues, claiming that this practice violates the due process and equal
protection clauses of the constitution. Given that he has been inactive and is not receiving
income from his legal practice, he contends that it is unjust to him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Arevalo is entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during the time
that he was inactive in the practice of law.
RULING:
No. The Bar Association's membership fee is an exaction for regulation. The fact that the Court
sets dues that members must pay does not indicate that the Court is intending to collect a tax. If
the judiciary has the authority to govern the Bar on its own, it stands to reason that as a result of
regulation, it may impose a membership fee for that purpose. An integrated bar program could
not be held without the funding to cover the costs. The notion of implied powers inherently
possesses the authority to enforce such an exaction.
The minor inconvenience to a member caused by his being forced to pay annual dues greatly
surpasses the public interest promoted by the unification of the Bar. Therefore, paying dues is a
necessary outcome of IBP membership, from which no one is exempt. This means that regardless
of whether a member is practicing or not, or what kind of practice they are engaging in, the
requirement to pay dues continues as long as they are an IBP member. Consistent with Canon 7
which focuses that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the integrated bar, he then is not exempted from paying
the dues since it is his responsibility to support such activities of the Bar.
Hence, it's critical to remember that joining the bar is a privilege with a variety of prerequisites,
one of which is paying membership dues. If any of these are violated, the privilege may be
revoked depending on how serious the offense was.
 Case:
Santos Jr. v. Atty. Llamas
A.C. No: 4749│Date: January 20, 2000 │Ponente: Mendoza, J.
Digested by: Stephanie Dawn Mondejar
FACTS:
This complaint was made against the respondent, Atty. Francisco R. Llamas, for
misinterpretation and failing to pay bar membership dues. Atty. Santos filed a lawsuit against
Atty. Francisco R. Llamas because for many years, Llamas has failed to include the correct PTR
and IBP O.R. Nos. and data (date and place of issuance) in his pleadings. Even though he only
ever mentions "IBP Rizal 259060," he has been doing so for at least three years. This issue is
being raised in accordance with Rule 138, Section 1, which states that only a member of the bar
who has been legally admitted and who is "in good and regular standing, is eligible to practice
law." Additionally, Rule 139A, Section 10 states that failure to pay annual dues for a period of
six months will result in suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and failure to pay for a
period of one year will result in removal of the member's name from the Roll of Attorneys.
Based on the findings of the IBP, the respondent has invoked and cited that "being a Senior
Citizen since 1992, he is legally exempt under Section 4 of Republic Act No 7432 which took
effect in the payment of taxes, income taxes as an example" despite the fact that he has neither
categorically denied nor admitted these allegations. The aforementioned legal provision is not
applicable in the current case. When he claimed that the "undersigned since 1992 having publicly
made it evident per his Income tax Return up to the present time that he had only a limited
profession of law," the respondent actually acknowledged that he is still engaged in legal practice
(par. 4 of Respondents Memorandum). As a result, the respondent must pay his annual dues to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a lawyer who is a senior citizen exempt from payment of membership dues.
RULING:
No. Despite the fact that his profession is "limited," the respondent is only permitted to practice
law in compliance with these requirements if he pays his dues. According to R.A. No. 7432,
senior citizens are exempt from paying individual income taxes as long as their annual taxable
income does not exceed the poverty line as established by the National Economic and
Development Authority (NEDA) for that year. With such, membership or association dues are
not covered by this exemption.
Every member of the Integrated Bar is required under Rule 139-A to pay annual dues; failure to
do so for six months will result in membership suspension; and failure to do so for a year will
result in the removal of the delinquent's name from the Roll of Attorneys. Abiding by Canon 7
and 10 which states, “A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the integrated bar”, and “A lawyer owes candor, fairness
and good faith to the court” respectively, Llamas is bound to these two as he is under the practice
of law.
Respondent further violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by falsely claiming in his
pleadings that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter and thereby misleading the public
and the courts. The Code of Professional Responsibility states in Rule 1.01: "A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct." His actions also violate Rule
10.01, which states that a lawyer is not allowed to lie in court or consent to lying in court, nor is
he or she allowed to deceive the court or permit the court to be deceived.
 Case:
Tiongco Yared v. Ilarde
G.R. No: 114732│Date: August 1, 2000 │Ponente: De Leon, Jr., J.
Digested by: Stephanie Dawn Mondejar
FACTS:
In an amended case, petitioner Estrella Tiongco Yared sought the "annulment of affidavit of
adjudication, sales, transfer certificates of title, reconveyance and damages" from private
defendants Jose Tiongco and Antonio Doronila, Jr. In order to safeguard her interest, the
petitioner had a notice of lis pendens annotated on the transfer certificates of title for the
properties in question. The complaint of the petitioners and the counterclaim of the private
respondent were both dismissed by the respondent judge, Hon. Ricardo M. Ilarde, on December
14, 1993, on the grounds that the petitioners' cause of action has already prescribed. Petitioner
submitted an appeal notice on December 17, 1993. After that, Respondent Tiongco submitted a
motion to dismiss the lis pendens notice. Both of the respondent's motions for consideration were
rejected. The respondent judge then agreed to dismiss the notice of lis pendens in an Order dated
February 14, 1994 after the third Motion for Reconsideration he had submitted was deemed
compelling.
Respondent Jose Tiongco, who serves as counsel for the private respondents and filed pleadings
and petitions with the courts, is accused of using improper and unethical language. Such an
instance was indicated when he stated that petitioner's attorney Atty. Marciana Deguma is, “a
rambunctious wrestler-type female of 52 who does not wear a dress which is not red, and who
stampedes into the courtroom like a mad fury and who speaks slang English to conceal her faulty
grammar”. In another instance, he even called Atty. Deguma “a love-crazed female Apache who
is now ready to skin defendant alive for not being a bastard”, and “a horned spinster and man
hungry virago and female bull of an Amazon who would stop at nothing to molest, harass, and
injure the defendant.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the language employed by Tiongco is improper and unethical.
RULING:
Yes. Through the usage of his improper and unethical language, Tiongco has violated the Canon
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. According to the Supreme Court, respondent
Tiongco destroyed someone's character. He throws his verbal darts without much concern for the
truth. He just serves to further obscure the problems, and his dependence on gossip merely
reveals a terrible lack of judgment. The provisions which he has violated are the following:
Canon 8: A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his
professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Rule 8.01: A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use languages which is abusive,
offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 11:03: A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language before the
courts.
The Court determined that, while amusing, Atty Tiongco's insults do not find a receptive
audience among us, and as a result, he should be cautioned.