RSS

In Re: Edillon, 84 SCRA 568 (AC 1928)

22 Jul

FACTS:

Atty. Marcial Edillon was dibarred due to non-payment of his IBP dues, hence the petitioner on this case. He claimed that the provisions of Sec. 10 of Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court is unconstitutional as he is being compelled, as a precondition in maintaining his good standing as a lawyer, to pay and settle his dues to the IBP. Petitioner stubbornly insisted his take and refused to admit full competence of the court in this matter. But after some time in realization, his recalcitrance and defiance were gone in his subsequent communication with the court. He appealed that his health, advanced age, and concern to his former clients’ welfare be considered in his prayer so that he can again practice law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Edillon should be reinstated as member of the bar.

HELD:

YES.

RATIO:

Admission to the bar is a privilege burdened with condition. Failure to abide entails loss of such privilege. Considered in addition was the two (2) years Atty. Edillon was barred to practice law, and the dictum of Justice Malcolm in Villavicencio v. Lukban that “the power to discipline, especially if amounting to disbarment, should be exercised in a preservative and not on the vindictive principle”. After contrition on the part of the petitioner, the court finds reinstatement in order.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on July 22, 2012 in Case Digests, Legal Ethics

 

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: