Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr.

Requesting Exemption From Payment of IBP Dues

FACTS: In his letter, 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. His 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 of one’s profession while in the Government service, and neither can he be
assessed for the years when he was working in the USA.
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. What Atty. Arevalo 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.
Atty. Arevalo questions the policy of the IBP board of governors of the non-exemption in the payment of
annual membership dues, asserting that the said policy a suffers from constitutional infirmities, such as
equal protection clause and the due process clause. He claims that it is oppressive to him considering that
he has been in an inactive status and is without income derived from his law practice.

ISSUE: Whether or nor petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during the time that
he was inactive in the practice of law that is, when he was in the Civil Service from 1962-1986 and he was
working abroad from 1986-2003.

HELD: NO. The court agreed with the IBP.

For the court to prescribe dues to be paid by the members does not mean that the Court is attempting to
levy a tax. A membership fee in the Bar association is an exaction for regulation, while tax purpose of a
tax is a revenue. If the judiciary has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it follows that as an incident to
regulation, it may impose a membership fee for that purpose. It would not be possible to put on an
integrated Bar program without means to defray the expenses. The doctrine of implied powers necessarily
carries with it the power to impose such exaction.
The public interest promoted by the integration of the Bar far outweighs the slight inconvenience to a
member resulting from his required payment of the annual dues.
Thus, payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the IBP, of which no one is exempt.
This means that the compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as one's membership in
the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of practice, the member is engaged in.
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.