In RE Edillon Issue:

Facts: Whether Sections 1, 9, 10 of the Rules of Court 139-A, and the

provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III of the IBP By-
Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Laws, constitute an invasion of Edillon's constitutional rights in
Philippines. On 29 November 1975, theIntegrated Bar of the the sense that he is being compelled, as a pre-condition to
Philippines (IBP) Board of Governors unanimously adopted maintaining his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a
Resolution 75-65 inAdministrative Case MDD-1 (In the Matter member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that
of the Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial as a consequence of this compelled financial support of the said
AEdillon) recommending to the Court the removal of the name organization to which he is admittedly personally antagonistic,
of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for "stubborn he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and property
refusal to pay his membership dues" to the IBP since the latter's guaranteed to him by the Constitution.
constitution notwithstanding due notice. On 21 January 1976,
the IBP, through its then President Liliano B. Neri, submitted
the said resolution to the Court for consideration and approval,
pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 24, Article III of the By-Laws Held:
of the IBP. On 27 January 1976, the Court required the An "Integrated Bar" is a State-organized Bar, to which every
respondent to comment on the resolution and letter adverted to lawyer must belong, as distinguished from bar associations
above; he submitted his comment on 23 February 1976, organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership in
reiterating his refusal to pay the membership fees due from which is voluntary. Integration of the Bar is essentially a
him. On 2 March 1976, the Court required the IBP President process by which every member of the Bar is afforded an
and the IBP Board ofGovernors to reply to Edillon's comment: opportunity to do his share in carrying out the objectives of the
on 24 March 1976, they submitted a joint reply. Thereafter, the Bar as well as obliged to bear his portion of its responsibilities.
case was set for hearing on 3 June 1976. After the hearing, the Organized by or under the direction of the State, an integrated
parties were required to submit memoranda in amplification of Bar is an official national body of which all lawyers are
their oral arguments. The matter was thenceforth submitted for required to be members. They are, therefore, subject to all the
resolution. rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar, including the
requirement of payment of a reasonable annual fee for the
effective discharge of the purposes of the Bar, and adherence to
a code of professional ethics or professional responsibility
breach of which constitutes sufficient reason for investigation The Act's avowal is to "raise the standards of the legal
by the Bar and, upon proper cause appearing, a profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable
recommendation for discipline or disbarment of the offending the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectivity."
member. The integration of the Philippine Bar was obviously Hence, the Congress in enacting such Act, the Court in
dictated by overriding considerations of public interest and ordaining the integration of the Bar through its Resolution
public welfare to such an extent as more than constitutionally promulgated on 9 January 1973, and the President of the
and legally justifies the restrictions that integration imposes Philippines in decreeing the constitution of the IBP into a body
upon the personal interests and personal convenience of corporate through PD 181 dated 4 May 1973, were prompted
individual lawyers. Apropos to the above, it must be stressed by fundamental considerations of public welfare and motivated
that all legislation directing the integration of the Bar have by a desire to meet the demands of pressing public necessity.
been uniformly and universally sustained as a valid exercise of But the most compelling argument sustaining the
the police power over an important profession. The practice of constitutionality and validity of Bar integration in the
law is not a vested right but a privilege, a privilege moreover Philippines is the explicit unequivocal grant of precise power
clothed with public interest because a lawyer owes substantial to the Supreme Court by Section 5 (5) of Article X of the 1973
duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the Constitution of the Philippines, which reads that the Supreme
profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in Court shall have the power to (5) "promulgate rules concerning
one of the most important functions of the State the pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and the
administration of justice as an officer of the Court. The admission to the practice of law and the integration of the Bar."
practice of law being clothed with public interest, the holder of Thus, when Edillon entered upon the legal profession, his
this privilege must submit to a degree of control for the practice of law and his exercise of the said profession, which
common good, to the extent of the interest he has created. affect the society at large, were and are subject to the power of
When, therefore, Congress enacted RA 6397 authorizing the the body politic to require him to conform to such regulations
Supreme Court to "adopt rules of court to effect the integration as might be established by the proper authorities for the
of the Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit," common good, even to the extent of interfering with some of
it did so in the exercise of the paramount police power of the his liberties. If he did not wish to submit himself to such
State. reasonable interference and regulation, he should not have
clothed the public with an interest in his concerns. Integration
does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is
not already a member. He became a member of the Bar when
he passed the Bar examinations. All that integration actually SSS Employee Asso. v CA
does is to provide an official national organization for the well-
defined but unorganized and incohesive group of which every Facts:
lawyer is already a member. Bar integration does not compel The petitioners went on strike after the SSS failed to act upon
the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not the unions demands concerning the implementation of their
attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or CBA. SSS filed before the court action for damages with
refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only prayer for writ of preliminary injunction against petitioners for
compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual staging an illegal strike. The court issued a temporary
dues. The Supreme Court, in order to further the State's restraining order pending the resolution of the application for
legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal preliminary injunction while petitioners filed a motion to
services, may require that the cost of improving the profession dismiss alleging the courts lack of jurisdiction over the subject
in this fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of matter. Petitioners contend that the court made reversible error
the regulatory program the lawyers. Assuming that the in taking cognizance on the subject matter since the jurisdiction
questioned provision does in a sense compel a lawyer to be a lies on the DOLE or the National Labor Relations Commission
member of the Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as as the case involves a labor dispute. The SSS contends on one
an exercise of the police power of the state. The provisions of hand that the petitioners are covered by the Civil Service laws,
Rule of Court 139-A and of the By-Laws of the Integrated Bar rules and regulation thus have no right to strike. They are not
of the Philippines complained of are neither unconstitutional covered by the NLRC or DOLE therefore the court may enjoin
nor illegal. the petitioners from striking.

Issue:

Whether or not SSS employers have the right to strike

Whether or not the CA erred in taking jurisdiction over the

subject matter.
Held: The Constitutional provisions enshrined on Human issue writ of injunction in labor disputes within its jurisdiction
Rights and Social Justice provides guarantee among workers thus the resort of SSS before the general court for the issuance
with the right to organize and conduct peaceful concerted of a writ of injunction to enjoin the strike is appropriate
activities such as strikes. On one hand, Section 14 of E.O No.
180 provides that the Civil Service law and rules governing
concerted activities and strikes in the government service shall Victoriano v Elizalde Rope Workers Union 59 SCRA 54
be observed, (1974)
subject to any legislation that may be enacted by Congress Facts:
referring to Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 1987 of the Civil
Service Commission which states that prior to the enactment Plaintiff is a member of the Elizalde Rope Workers Union who
by Congress of applicable laws concerning strike by later resigned from his affiliation to the said union by reason of
government employees enjoins under pain of administrative the prohibition of his religion for its members to become
sanctions, all government officers and employees from staging affiliated with any labor organization. The union has subsisting
strikes, demonstrations, mass leaves, walk-outs and other forms closed shop agreement in their collective bargaining agreement
of mass action which will result in temporary stoppage or with their employer that all permanent employees of the
disruption of public service. Therefore in the absence of any company must be a member of the union and later was
legislation allowing govt. employees to strike they are amended by Republic Act No. 3350 with the provision stating
prohibited from doing so. "but such agreement shall not cover members of any religious
sects which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such
In Sec. 1 of E.O. No. 180 the employees in the civil service are labor organization".. By his resignation, the union wrote a
denominated as government employees and that the SSS is letter to the company to separate the plaintiff from the service
one such government-controlled corporation with an original after which he was informed by the company that unless he
charter, having been created under R.A. No. 1161, its makes a satisfactory arrangement with the union he will be
employees are part of the civil service and are covered by the dismissed from the service. The union contends that RA 3350
Civil Service Commissions memorandum prohibiting strikes. impairs obligation of contract stipulated in their CBA and
Neither the DOLE nor the NLRC has jurisdiction over the discriminatorily favors religious sects in providing exemption
subject matter but instead it is the Public Sector Labor- to be affiliated with any labor unions.
Management Council which is not granted by law authority to
Issue:

WON RA 3350 impairs the right to form association.

Held:

The court held that what the Constitution and the Industrial
Peace Act recognize and guarantee is the "right" to form or join
associations which involves two broad notions, namely: first,
liberty or freedom, i.e., the absence of legal restraint, whereby
an employee may act for himself without being prevented by
law; and second, power, whereby an employee may join or
refrain from joining an association. Therefore the right to join a
union includes the right to abstain from joining any union. The
exceptions provided by the assailed Republic Act is that
members of said religious sects cannot be compelled or
coerced to join labor unions even when said unions have closed
shop agreements with the employers; that in spite of any closed
shop agreement, members of said religious sects cannot be
refused employment or dismissed from their jobs on the sole
ground that they are not members of the collective bargaining
union. Thus this exception does not infringe upon the
constitutional provision on freedom of association but instead
reinforces it.