LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO Y. AREVALO, JR.

, REQUESTING EXEMPTION FROM

PAYMENT OF IBP DUES

Facts:

In his letter, dated 22 September 2004, petitioner sought exemption from payment of IBP dues in the
amount of P12,035.00 as alleged unpaid accountability for the years 1977-2005. He alleged that after
being admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1961, he became part of the Philippine Civil Service from July
1962 until 1986, then migrated to, and worked in, the USA in December 1986 until his retirement in the
year 2003. He maintained that he cannot be assessed IBP dues for the years that he was working in the
Philippine Civil Service since the Civil Service law prohibits the practice of one’s profession while in
government service, and neither can he be assessed for the years when he was working in the USA.

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

Ruling:
The supreme court held that the 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.

There is nothing in the law or rules which allows exemption from payment of membership dues. At
most, as correctly observed by the IBP, he could have informed the Secretary of the Integrated Bar of his
intention to stay abroad before he left. In such case, his membership in the IBP could have been
terminated and his obligation to pay dues could have been discontinued.

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.
 JARDELEZA v. SERENO
G.R. No. 213181
August 19, 2014
733 SCRA 279

FACTS: Associate Justice Roberto Abad was about to retire and the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)
announce an opening for application and recommendation for the said vacancy. Francis H. Jardeleza
(Jardeleza), incumbent Solicitor General of the Republic was included in the list of candidates. Hence,
he was interviewed.However, he received calls from some Justices that the Chief Justice herself – CJ
Sereno, will be invoking unanimity rule against him. It is invoked because Jardeleza’s integrity is in
question.

During the meeting, Justice Carpio disclosed a confidential information which characterized Jardeleza’s
integrity as dubious. Jardeleza answered that he would defend himself provided that due process would
be observed. His request was denied and he was not included in the shortlist.

Hence, Jardeleza filed for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for TRO to compel the JBC to include
him in the list on the grounds that the JBC and CJ Sereno acted with grave abuse of discretion in
excluding him, despite having garnered a sufficient number of votes to qualify for the position.

ISSUE: Whether or not the right to due process is available in the course of JBC proceedings in cases
where an objection or opposition to an application is raised.

RULING: Yes. While it is true that the JBC proceedings are sui generis, it does not automatically
denigrate an applicant’s entitlement to due process.

The Court does not brush aside the unique and special nature of JBC proceedings. Notwithstanding
being “a class of its own,” the right to be heard and to explain one’s self is availing. In cases where an
objection to an applicant’s qualifications is raised, the observance of due process neither contradicts the
fulfillment of the JBC’s duty to recommend. This holding is not an encroachment on its discretion in the
nomination process. Actually, its adherence to the precepts of due process supports and enriches the
exercise of its discretion. When an applicant, who vehemently denies the truth of the objections, is
afforded the chance to protest, the JBC is presented with a clearer understanding of the situation it faces,
thereby guarding the body from making an unsound and capricious assessment of information brought
before it. The JBC is not expected to strictly apply the rules of evidence in its assessment of an objection
against an applicant. Just the same, to hear the side of the person challenged complies with the dictates
of fairness because the only test that an exercise of discretion must surmount is that of soundness.

Consequently, the Court is compelled to rule that Jardeleza should have been included in the shortlist
submitted to the President for the vacated position of Associate Justice Abad. This consequence arose
from the violation by the JBC of its own rules of procedure and the basic tenets of due process.

True, Jardeleza has no vested right to a nomination, but this does not prescind from the fact that the JBC
failed to observe the minimum requirements of due process.
Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco, Complainants, v. Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo, Respondent
A.C. No. 6368, 13 June 2012

Facts:

Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Pablo S. Bernardo
for deceit, malpractice, conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar, and violation of duties and oath as a
lawyer. From 15 April 1997 to 22 July 1997, the respondent – with the connivance of Andres Magat –
willfully and illegally committed fraudulent act with intent to defraud against the complainants by using
false pretenses and deceitful words to the effect that he would expedite the titling of land belonging to
the Miranda Family of Tagaytay City, who are the acquaintance of the complainants.

It started when the respondent convinced the complainants to finance and deliver to him PhP
495,000.00 as advanced money to expedite the titling of the subject land. He further committed
misrepresentation by presenting himself as the lawyer of William Gatchalian, the prospective buyer of
the land. He also led complaints to believe that he has contracts at NAMRIA, DENR, CENRO and the
Register of Deeds which representation he well knew were false, fraudulent and were only made to
induce the complainants to give and deliver the said amount. Upon receipt of the money, he did not
comply with his obligation to expedite the titling of the land but instead use the money for personal use.
The complainants demanded the return of the money to no avail.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent violated the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility
(CPR)?

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the respondent committed the acts complained of. He, himself, admitted
in his answer that his legal services were hired by the complainants through Magat regarding the purported
titling of land supposedly purchase. He used his position as a lawyer in order to deceive the complainants
into believing that he can expedite the titling of the subject properties. He never denied that he did not
benefit from the money given by the complainants in the amount of PhP 495,000.00.

The Supreme Court find the respondent in violation of the Rule 2.03, Canon 2 and Rule 3.01, Canon 3
of the CPR. The respondent was suspended from practice of law for one year and return the amount of
PhP 200,000.00 to Fidela Bengco and Teresita Bengco with 10 days upon receipt of decision. The
respondent is required to submit to the Supreme Court proof of compliance.