Arevalo vs. Integrated Bar of the Philippines

Payment of annual dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and no lawyer is exempt from this obligation regardless of inactive status, non-practice of law, or employment abroad; the only manner by which the obligation to pay dues may be discontinued is through formal termination of IBP membership.

The Philippine Bar was integrated in 1973 pursuant to the Supreme Court's constitutional power to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and integration of the Bar. Integration requires every lawyer to be a member of the IBP and to pay annual dues as a regulatory measure to defray the expenses of regulating the legal profession. This case addresses whether lawyers who are not actively practicing law—either because they are in government service where practice is prohibited or because they are working abroad—may be exempted from the mandatory payment of IBP dues.

• Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr. was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1961.
• He worked in the Philippine Civil Service from July 1962 until 1986, during which time Civil Service law prohibited him from practicing his profession.
• He migrated to and worked in the United States from December 1986 until his retirement in 2003.
• The IBP assessed him P12,035.00 as unpaid membership dues for the years 1977-2005.
• Petitioner claimed he cannot be assessed for years he was in government service or working abroad since he was not practicing law during those periods.
• The IBP maintained that membership is not based on actual practice of law and that there is no rule allowing exemption from payment of dues.

• The IBP Board of Governors' Policy of Non-Exemption in the payment of annual membership dues suffers from constitutional infirmities, specifically violations of the equal protection clause and the due process clause.
• Compulsory payment of IBP annual membership dues is oppressive to him considering that he has been in inactive status and is without income derived from law practice.
• Removal from the Roll of Attorneys for nonpayment of annual membership dues would constitute deprivation of property right without due process of law.
• Non-practice of law by lawyer-members in inactive status is neither injurious to active law practitioners, to fellow lawyers in inactive status, nor to the community.

• Membership in the IBP is not based on actual practice of law; a lawyer continues to be included in the Roll of Attorneys as long as he remains a member of the IBP.
• Payment of annual dues is an obligation of members under Sections 9 and 10, Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court, as determined by the IBP Board of Governors and duly approved by the Supreme Court.
• The validity of imposing dues on IBP members has been upheld as necessary to defray the cost of the Integrated Bar Program.
• There is no rule allowing exemption from payment of annual dues; what is allowed is voluntary termination and reinstatement of membership.
• Petitioner could have informed the IBP Secretary of his intention to stay abroad before he left, so that his membership could have been terminated and his obligation to pay dues discontinued.
• The IBP Board of Governors is discussing proposals for the creation of an inactive status for members, but until such is approved, members must pay dues.

• Procedural Issues:
  • N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of IBP dues during the time he was inactive in the practice of law, specifically when he was in the Civil Service from 1962-1986 and when he was working abroad from 1986-2003.

• Procedural:
  • N/A
• Substantive:
  • The request for exemption is denied. Payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the IBP, of which no one is exempt. The compulsory nature of payment subsists for as long as one's membership in the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice or the type of practice the member is engaged in.
  • There is nothing in the law or rules which allows exemption from payment of membership dues. At most, petitioner could have informed the Secretary of the Integrated Bar of his intention to stay abroad before he left, in which case his membership could have been terminated and his obligation to pay dues discontinued.
  • 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.
  • Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, one of which is the payment of membership dues, and failure to abide by this condition entails the loss of such privilege if the gravity thereof warrants such drastic move.
  • Petitioner is ordered to pay P12,035.00, the amount assessed by the IBP as membership fees for the years 1977-2005, within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt of the decision, with a warning that failure to do so will merit his suspension from the practice of law.

• Integration of the Philippine Bar — Defined as the official unification of the entire lawyer population requiring membership and financial support of every attorney as conditions sine qua non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court.
• Regulatory Nature of IBP Dues — Membership fees in the Bar association are exactions for regulation, not revenue-raising taxes; the Supreme Court has inherent power under its constitutional authority to regulate the Bar to impose such fees to defray the expenses of integration.
• Practice of Law as Privilege — Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, including the payment of membership dues, and is not a property right that would be protected against deprivation without due process in the context of regulatory measures.

• "The integration of the Philippine Bar means the official unification of the entire lawyer population. This requires membership and financial support of every attorney as conditions sine qua non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys of the Supreme Court."
• "Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not to 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 his annual dues."
• "Thus, payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the IBP, of which no one is exempt."
• "But we must here emphasize 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."
• "As a final note, it must be borne in mind that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions, one of which is the payment of membership dues."

• In re Atty. Marcial Edillon — Controlling precedent establishing that the practice of law is not a property right but a privilege subject to regulation, and that penalties for nonpayment of IBP dues are valid regulatory measures designed to enforce payment.
• In re Integration of the Bar of the Philippines — Foundational case establishing the principle that integration requires membership and financial support as conditions for practicing law and retention in the Roll of Attorneys.
• Lathrop v. Donohue — Cited for the principle that the Supreme Court may require lawyers to share the cost of improving the profession as part of the State's legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services.

• Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution — Grants the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and the integration of the Philippine Bar.
• Sections 9 and 10, Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court — Provide for the obligation of IBP members to pay annual dues as determined by the Board of Governors and approved by the Supreme Court.