The Supreme Court ruled that membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) requires payment of dues regardless of whether a lawyer is actively practicing law. Atty. Arevalo’s request for exemption was denied; membership in the IBP necessitates financial support. This ruling ensures that all lawyers contribute to the functioning of the IBP, which aims to regulate and elevate the legal profession in the Philippines. Ultimately, the court reinforced the principle that membership entails both privileges and responsibilities, including financial obligations, crucial for bar integration and regulation.
Navigating Dues: Can Lawyers Avoid IBP Fees Through Inactive Status?
This case originates from Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr.’s request to be exempt from paying IBP dues, arguing that he was not actively practicing law during the periods he worked in the Philippine Civil Service and in the USA. Arevalo was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1961. From July 1962 until 1986, he worked in the Philippine Civil Service. In December 1986, he migrated to the United States and worked there until his retirement in 2003. Consequently, he believed he should not be assessed IBP dues for those years. The core legal question is whether a lawyer can be exempted from IBP dues during periods of inactivity in legal practice.
The IBP argued that membership is not based on actual practice, emphasizing that inclusion in the Roll of Attorneys requires continuous IBP membership and the payment of annual dues, as determined by the IBP Board of Governors and approved by the Supreme Court under Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court. The IBP further stated that the policy of non-exemption from payment of dues is essential for defraying the costs of the Integrated Bar Program. It also suggested that Arevalo could have terminated his membership upon moving abroad to avoid incurring further dues. This approach contrasts with Arevalo’s argument that the non-exemption policy infringes on constitutional rights such as equal protection and due process, especially considering his inactive status and lack of income from legal practice.
The Supreme Court, in its decision, affirmed that the integration of the Philippine Bar requires both membership and financial support from all attorneys as a condition to practice law and remain on the Roll of Attorneys. Bar integration compels the payment of annual dues, allowing the Court to foster the State’s interest in elevating the quality of legal services by ensuring that the costs are shared by those who benefit from the regulatory program. The Court clarified that the prescribed dues are not a tax but a regulatory measure. This principle is derived from the judiciary’s inherent power to regulate the Bar, which includes the ability to impose membership fees for regulatory purposes, highlighting that such power is essential for executing an integrated Bar program. This approach contrasts with the petitioner’s view, who believes the membership is constricting.
The Supreme Court also addressed Arevalo’s contention that non-payment leading to removal would constitute deprivation of property without due process. Citing In re Atty. Marcial Edillon, the Court emphasized that the practice of law is not a property right but a privilege, subject to regulation and inquiry under the State’s police power and the Court’s inherent powers. Therefore, the penalty for non-payment of fees, avoidable by payment, is not unreasonable or arbitrary. Building on this principle, the Court reiterated that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, including the payment of dues. Failure to meet these conditions could result in the loss of that privilege.
Thus, the Supreme Court denied Arevalo’s request for exemption and ordered him to pay the assessed dues within ten days, under threat of suspension from legal practice. The Court effectively reinforced the necessity of mandatory IBP membership dues, highlighting the obligations that accompany the privilege of practicing law in the Philippines. These responsibilities, including financial contributions, are crucial for maintaining an effective and well-regulated legal profession. The IBP Board is in the process of discussing inactive members, however, this ruling ensures immediate obligation.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether a lawyer could be exempt from paying IBP dues during periods when he was not actively practicing law, specifically when he was working in the Civil Service and abroad. |
| What did the IBP argue in response to Atty. Arevalo’s request? | The IBP argued that membership dues are required regardless of whether a lawyer is actively practicing. The obligation continues as long as one remains a member of the IBP, also indicating he could’ve ended his membership before moving abroad. |
| How did the Supreme Court rule in this case? | The Supreme Court ruled against Atty. Arevalo, asserting that payment of IBP dues is a mandatory requirement of membership, irrespective of the member’s activity status or location. |
| Is payment of IBP dues considered a tax? | No, the Court clarified that IBP dues are not a tax but a regulatory fee. The fee is designed to fund the IBP’s programs and initiatives aimed at regulating and improving the legal profession. |
| What is the consequence of not paying IBP dues? | Failure to pay IBP dues can lead to suspension from the practice of law. The Court emphasized that meeting the financial obligations is part of being a member of the IBP. |
| Can a lawyer’s right to practice law be considered a property right? | The Court stated that the practice of law is a privilege, not a property right. Therefore, it is subject to regulation and can be conditioned upon fulfilling certain obligations, such as paying dues. |
| What are the conditions that accompany membership to the IBP? | Payment of membership dues and continued fulfillment of the obligations, membership entails. Failure to do so, may be cause for disciplinary actions and other consequences. |
| How much was the payment asked for from Arevalo, as IBP dues? | Arevalo was required to pay P12,035.00, the assessed dues amount by the IBP as membership fees for the years 1977-2005. |
This decision reaffirms the compulsory nature of IBP membership and the financial obligations that come with it. By mandating dues, the Supreme Court seeks to ensure the continued operation and improvement of the Philippine Bar. As the legal landscape evolves, understanding these obligations remains essential for every member of the bar.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO Y. AREVALO, JR., REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF IBP DUES., 42907, May 09, 2005
Leave a Reply