List of Cases to Digest:

1. Soriano vs Dizon 480 SCRA 1 (moral turpitude)

2. Tiong vs Florendo 662 SCRA 1 (Affair with the client’s wife)
3. Dalisay vs Mauricio Jr 479 SCRA 307 (Attorney-client relationship)
4. Gonzales vs Cabucana J 479 SCRA 320 (conflict of interest)
5. PAGCOR vs Carandang 480 SCRA 512 (BP 22)
6. Lim-Santiago vs Sogocio 486 SCRA 10 (govt lawyer and practice of law)
7. Prieto vs Corpuz 510 SCRA 1 (right to litigate)
8. Bejaresco Jr. vs People 641 SCRA 328 (lawyer’s mistake)
9. UP Law vs SC 644 SCRA 328 (plagiarism in the SC)
10. Carabeo vs Dingco 647 SCRA 200 (death of client)
11. Heirs of F. Retuya vs CA 647 SCRA (substitution of counsel)
12. Geruna vs Madamba 656 SCRA 34 (duty of notary public)
13. Baculing vs Ballung 658 SCRA 209 (insulting a judge)
14. Sy vs Fairland Knitcraft Co. Inc. 662 SCRA 67 (authority to appear)
15. PEDRO L. LINSANGAN vs. ATTY. NICOMEDES TOLENTINO, A.C. No. 6672, Sept 4, 2009
(advertising in the legal profession)

Sample Case Digest

IN RE: EDILLON (AC 1928 12/19/1980)

FACTS: The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the
Philippines. The IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Court the removal of the name
of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues
assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section
24, Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of IBP, payment of
membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same.

Edillon contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights
in the sense that he is being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain 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
admitted personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and properly
guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the respondent concludes the above
provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.

ISSUE: Whether or not the court may compel Atty. Edillion to pay his membership fee to the
IBP.

HELD: The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which every lawyer must be a member of
as distinguished from bar associations in which membership is merely optional and
voluntary. All lawyers are subject to comply with the rules prescribed for the governance of
the Bar including payment a reasonable annual fees as one of the requirements. The Rules of
Court only compels him to pay his annual dues and it is not in violation of his constitutional
freedom to associate. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone.
He is free to attend or not the meeting of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to
vote in its election 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 the cost of the
regulatory program – the lawyers.

Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the State. The 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 is not void as unreasonable as arbitrary.
Furthermore, the Court has jurisdiction over matters of admission, suspension, disbarment,
and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation as part of its inherent judicial functions
and responsibilities thus the court may compel all members of the Integrated Bar to pay
their annual dues.