In re: Atty.
Marcial Edillon
A.C. No. 1928. August 3, 1978
FACTS:
The respondent Martial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Philippines. The
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors unanimously adopted Resolution
recommending to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of
Attorneys for “stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues” to the IBP since the latter’s
constitution notwithstanding due notice. The Court required the respondent to comment on the
resolution; he submitted his comment reiterating his refusal to pay the membership fees due
from him. The core of the respondent’s arguments is that the above provisions constitute an
invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled, as a precondition to
maintaining his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a member of the IBP and to pay the
corresponding dues, and that as a consequence of this compelled financial support of the said
organization to which he is admittedly personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights
to liberty and property guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the respondent concludes,
the provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP By- Laws are void and of no legal force and
effect. The respondent similarly questions the jurisdiction of the Court to strike his name from
the Roll of Attorneys, contending that the said matter is not among the justiciable cases triable
by the Court but is rather of an “administrative nature pertaining to an administrative body.”
ISSUES
Whether the Court is without power to compel him to become a member of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines. Whether the provision of the Court Rule requiring payment of a membership
fee is void. Whether the enforcement of the penalty provisions would amount to a deprivation of
property without due process and hence infringes on one of his constitutional rights. Whether
the power of SC to strike the name of a lawyer from its Roll of Attorneys is valid.
HELD:
1. To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of Edillon’s
constitutional freedom to associate. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with
anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or
refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is the
payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court, in order to further the State’s legitimate interest in
elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require that the cost of improving the
profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program
— the lawyers. But, assuming that the questioned provision does in a sense compel a lawyer to
be a member of the Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police
power of the State.
2. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the Court, to promulgate rules concerning the
admission to the practice of law and the integration of the Philippine Bar (Article X, Section 5 of
the 1973 Constitution) — from requiring members of a privileged class, such as lawyers are, to
pay a reasonable fee toward defraying the expenses of regulation of the profession to which they
belong. It is quite apparent that the fee is indeed imposed as a regulatory measure,
designed to raise funds for carrying out the objectives and purposes of integration.
3. Whether the practice of law is a property right, the respondent’s 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, then a penalty designed to enforce
its payment, which penalty may be avoided altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable
or arbitrary. But it must be emphasized that the practice of law is not a property right but
a mere privilege, and as such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the
Court to exact compliance with the lawyer’s public responsibilities.
4. Relative to the issue of the power and/or jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to strike the name
of a lawyer from its Roll of Attorneys, it is sufficient to state that the matters of admission,
suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation and supervision have
been and are indisputably recognized as inherent judicial functions and responsibilities, and the
authorities holding such are legion.
DECISION
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is the unanimous sense of the Court that the respondent
Marcial A. Edillon should be as he is hereby disbarred, and his name is hereby ordered stricken
from the Roll of Attorneys of the Court. Respondent disbarred.
IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS
MICHAEL A. MEDADO, PETITIONER. (DIGEST)
B.M. No. 2540
September 24, 2013
TOPIC:
Admission to the Bar, Unauthorized Practice of Law, Canon 9, Signing of the
Roll of Attorneys
FACTS:
Michael A. Medado passed the Philippine bar exams in 1979. On 7 May
1980, he took the Attorney’s Oath at the PICC. He was scheduled to sign in
the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980, but failed to do so allegedly because
he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. Several years
later, while rummaging through his things, he found said Notice. He then
realized that he had not signed in the roll, and that what he had signed at the
entrance of the PICC was probably just an attendance record.
He thought that since he already took the oath, the signing of the Roll of
Attorneys was not as important. The matter of signing in the Roll of
Attorneys was subsequently forgotten.
In 2005, when Medado attended MCLE seminars, he was required to provide
his roll number for his MCLE compliances to be credited. Not having signed
in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to provide his roll number.
About seven years later, in 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition, praying
that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. Medado justifies this lapse
by characterizing his acts as “neither willful nor intentional but based on a
mistaken belief and an honest error of judgment.
The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the instant petition be
denied for petitioner’s gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of
merit, saying that petitioner could offer no valid justification for his
negligence in signing in the Roll of Attorneys.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner may be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
RULING:
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition subject to the payment of a fine
and the imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of
law.
Not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys would be akin to
imposing upon him the ultimate penalty of disbarment, a penalty reserved for
the most serious ethical transgressions. In this case, said action is not
warranted.
The Court considered Medado’s demonstration of good faith in filing the
petition himself, albeit after the passage of more than 30 years; that he has
shown that he possesses the character required to be a member of the
Philippine Bar; and that he appears to have been a competent and able legal
practitioner, having held various positions at different firms and companies.
However, Medado is not free from all liability for his years of inaction.
A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because
everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences.
Medado may have at first operated under an honest mistake of fact when he
thought that what he had signed at the PICC entrance before the oath-taking
was already the Roll of Attorneys. However, the moment he realized that
what he had signed was just an attendance record, he could no longer claim
an honest mistake of fact as a valid justification. At that point, he should have
known that he was not a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar, as it was
the act of signing therein that would have made him so. When, in spite of this
knowledge, he chose to continue practicing law, he willfully engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law.
Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgresses
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. At the heart of Canon 9
is the lawyer’s duty to prevent the unauthorized practice of law. This duty
likewise applies to law students and Bar candidates. As aspiring members of
the Bar, they are bound to conduct themselves in accordance with the ethical
standards of the legal profession.
Medado cannot be suspended as he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer. However,
the Court imposed upon him a penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to
sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of the Resolution. He
was also made to pay a fine of P32,000. Also, during the one-year period,
petitioner was not allowed to engage in the practice of law.
SOLIMAN M. SANTOS v. ATTY. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, AC No. 4749, 2000-01-20
Facts:
This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues filed
against respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas.
In a letter-complaint to this Court... complainant Soliman M. Santos, Jr., himself a member
of the bar, alleged that:
I wish to bring to your attention and appropriate sanction the matter of Atty. Francisco R.
Llamas who, for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP O.R.
Nos. and data (date & place of issuance) in his pleadings.
If at all, he only indicates "IBP Rizal 259060" but he has been using this for at least three
years already
This matter is being brought in the context of Rule 138, Section 1 which qualifies that only a
duly admitted member of the bar "who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice
law".
There is also Rule 139-A, Section 10 which provides that "default in the... payment of
annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the
Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the
removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys."
Please note that while Atty. Llamas indicates "IBP Rizal 259060" sometimes, he does not
indicate any PTR for payment of professional tax.
Finally, it is relevant to note the track record of Atty. Francisco R. Llamas, as shown by:...
his dismissal as Pasay City Judge... his conviction for estafa... respondent alleged:
Supreme Court dismissal decision was set aside and reversed and respondent was even
promoted from City Judge of Pasay City to Regional Trial Court Judge of Makati
Complainant need not even file this complaint if indeed the decision of dismissal as a Judge
was never set aside and reversed, and also had the decision of conviction for a light felony,
been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Undersigned himself would surrender his right or...
privilege to practice law.
Undersigned since 1992 have publicly made it clear per his Income Tax Return, up to the
present, that he had only a limited practice of law. In fact, in his Income Tax Return, his
principal occupation is a farmer of which he is.
Moreover, and more than anything else, respondent being a Senior Citizen since 1992, is
legally exempt under Section 4 of Rep. Act 7432 which took effect in 1992, in the payment
of taxes
Being thus exempt, he honestly believe in view of his... detachment from a total practice of
law, but only in a limited practice, the subsequent payment by him of dues with the
Integrated Bar is covered by such exemption.
In fact, he never exercised his rights as an IBP member to vote and be voted upon.
IBP Board of Governors passed a resolution... adopting and approving the report and
recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner which found respondent guilty, and
recommended his suspension from the practice of law for three... months and until he pays
his IBP dues.
Respondent moved for a reconsideration of the decision, but this was denied by the IBP
Hence, pursuant to Rule 139-B, §12(b) of the Rules of Court, this case is here for final...
action on the decision of the IBP ordering respondent's suspension for three months.
Issues:
On the first issue, Complainant has shown "respondent's non-indication of the proper IBP
O.R. and PTR numbers in his pleadings... more particularly his use of "IBP Rizal 259060 for
at least three years."
On the second issue, complainant claims that respondent has misled the court about his
standing in the IBP by using the same IBP O.R. number in his pleadings of at least six years
and therefore liable for his actions.
Ruling:
First. Indeed, respondent admits that since 1992, he has engaged in law practice without
having paid his IBP dues.
He likewise admits that, as appearing in the pleadings submitted by complainant to this
Court, he indicated "IBP-Rizal 259060" in the pleadings he filed in... court, at least for the
years 1995, 1996, and 1997, thus misrepresenting that such was his IBP chapter
membership and receipt number for the years in which those pleadings were filed.
He claims, however, that he is only engaged in a "limited" practice and that he
believes in... good faith that he is exempt from the payment of taxes... as a senior
citizen since 1992.
Rule 139-A provides:
Sec. 9. Membership dues. - Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual
dues as the Board of Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme
Court. A fixed sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the collections from each Chapter
shall be... set aside as a Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the
compulsory heirs of deceased members thereof.
Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. - Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this
Rule, default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of
membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a
ground... for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.
In accordance with these provisions, respondent can engage in the practice of law only by
paying his dues, and it does not matter that his practice is "limited."
While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, §4 grants senior citizens "exemption... the exemption
does not include payment of membership or association dues.
Second. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to
the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is
guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY
OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED
BAR.
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE
COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any court; nor
shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
Respondent's failure to pay his IBP dues and his misrepresentation in the pleadings he filed
in court indeed merit the most severe penalty.
However, in view of respondent's advanced age, his express willingness to pay his dues
and plea for a more temperate application of the... law,... we believe the penalty of one
year suspension from the practice of law or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever
is later, is appropriate.
Atty. Francisco R. Llamas is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR, or
until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.
omplaint in a civil action which alleges a plaintiffs cause or cause of action."
Date: July 24, 2019Author: staredecisis2 Comments
CASE BRIEF 2015-0874
CASE: People of the Philippines vs. Jesus A. Arrojado [G.R. No. 207041, November 09,
2015]
PONENTE: Peralta, J.:
SUBJECT:
1. Remedial Law:
i. Information – Meaning;
ii. Rule 65 – Grave Abuse of Discretion; meaning
2. MCLE Certificate of Compliance
“An information is a pleading since the allegations therein, which charge a person
with an offense, is basically the same as a complaint in a civil action which alleges a
plaintiffs cause or cause of action.”
FACTS: In an Information, Jesus Arrojado was charged with the crime of murder by the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Roxas City, Capiz.
Arrojado filed a Motion to Dismissthe Information filed against him on the ground that
the investigating prosecutor who filed the said Information failed to indicate therein
the number and date of issue of her Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) Certificate of Compliance, as required by Bar Matter No. 1922 (B.M. No.
1922) which was promulgated by this Court via an En Banc Resolution dated June 3,
2008.
The People of the Philippines (The People), represented by the office of the City
Prosecutor, filed its Comment/Oppositionto Arrojado’s Motion to Dismiss.
The RTC dismissed the subject Information without prejudice. The People filed a
Motion for Reconsideration but the trial court denied.
The People then filed a petition for certiorari and/or mandamus with the CA.
The CA denied The People’s petition and affirmed the questioned RTC Orders.
Hence, he filed a petition for review on certiorari in the Supreme Court .
The People contends that: (1) the term “pleadings” as used in B.M. No. 1922 does not
include criminal Informations filed in court; (2) the failure of the investigating
prosecutor to indicate in the Information the number and date of issue of her MCLE
Certificate of Compliance is a mere formal defect and is not a valid ground to dismiss
the subject Information which is otherwise complete in form and substance.
ISSUES:
A) Whether the term “pleadings” does not include criminal Information filed in court;
B) Whether the failure of the of the investigating prosecutor to indicate in the Information
the number and date of issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance is a valid ground to
dismiss the subject Information.
C) Whether or not the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion in dismissing
the Information.
RULING:
A) The term “pleadings” include Informations.
Pertinent portions of B.M. No. 1922, provide as follows:
“x x x x
The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the Committee on Legal
Education and Bar Matters, to REQUIRE practicing members of the bar to
INDICATE in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-judicial bodies, the number
and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption,
as may be applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to
disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the
expunction of the pleadings from the records.
x x x”
Section 1, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, as amended, defines pleadings as the written
statements of the respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted to the court for
appropriate judgment. Among the pleadings enumerated under Section 2 thereof are the
complaint and the answer in a civil suit. On the other hand, under Section 4, Rule 110 of
the same Rules, an information is defined as an accusation in writing charging a person
with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and filed with the court. In accordance with
the above definitions, it is clear that an information is a pleading since the allegations
therein, which charge a person with an offense, is basically the same as a complaint
in a civil action which alleges a plaintiffs cause or cause of action.
An information is, for all intents and purposes, considered an initiatory pleading
because it is a written statement that contains the cause of action of a party, which
in criminal cases is the State as represented by the prosecutor, against the
accused. Like a pleading, the Information is also filed in court for appropriate judgment.
Undoubtedly then, an Information falls squarely within the ambit of Bar Matter No. 1922,
in relation to Bar Matter 850.
B) Failure of the investigating prosecutor to indicate in the subject Information the
number and date of issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance is a valid ground to
dismiss such Information.
Suffice it to state that B.M. No. 1922 categorically provides that “failure to disclose the
required information would cause the dismissal of the case and the expunction of
the pleadings from the records.”
C) There was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional trial Court. Grave
abuse of discretion means such capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment which is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the
abuse of discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or
despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and
gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the
duty enjoined, or to act at all, in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted
without jurisdiction. Since the trial court’s dismissal of the subject Information was
based on a clear and categorical provision of a rule issued by this Court, the court a
quo could not have committed a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment nor
did it exercise its discretion in an arbitrary or despotic manner.
***Note:
While the Supreme Court, in this case, affirmed the dismissal of the Information due to
the failure of the investigating prosecutor to indicate the number and date of issue of his
MCLE Certificate of Compliance, it noted that B.M. No. 1922 has been amended on
January 14, 2014 when the Court promulgated an En Banc Resolution repealing the
phrase “Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of
the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records” and replacing it with
“Failure to disclose the required information would subject the counsel to
appropriate penalty and disciplinary action.”. This is to avoid inordinate delays in
the disposition of cases brought about by a counsel’s failure to indicate in his or her
pleadings the number and date of issue of his or her MCLE Certificate of Compliance.
Thus, under the amendatory Resolution, the failure of a lawyer to indicate in his or her
pleadings the number and date of issue of his or her MCLE Certificate of
Compliance will no longer result in the dismissal of the case and expunction of the
pleadings from the records. Nonetheless, such failure will subject the lawyer to the
prescribed fine and/or disciplinary action.
————————————————-
THINGS DECIDED:
A) An information is a pleading since the allegations therein, which charge a person
with an offense, is basically the same as a complaint in a civil action which alleges a
plaintiffs cause or cause of action.
B) To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the abuse of discretion must be
grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of
passion or personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an
evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to act at
all, in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction.
C) The failure of a lawyer to indicate in his or her pleadings the number and date of
issue of his or her MCLE Certificate of Compliance will no longer result in the
dismissal of the case and expunction of the pleadings from the records. Nonetheless,
such failure will subject the lawyer to the prescribed fine and/or disciplinary action.
