When one says that he is in private law practice we seem to have a general understanding of what “practice of law” means. We seem to picture a practicing lawyer to be in barong tagalog or suit with attache case arguing cases in court. This might be the general notion that we have of practicing lawyers but at some point int our legal history, the Supreme Court was confronted with the question of what constitutes “practice of law”. Some might think that the question is too basic to reach the highest court and surely there are others which are more important than this. But what in the world necessitated the determination of what “practice of law” constitutes? If we go over our Constitution, some positions require the candidate to have practiced law for a certain number of years before being can be appointed. Right after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution and with the regime shift from Marcos to Aquino, many positions were created, abolished, as well as vacated. Christian Monsod was considered for the position of Chairman of the Commission on Elections where in order to be qualified, a candidate must be a member of the Philippine Bar who has “been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years” (The 1987 Constitution, Section 1 (1), Article IX-C). The question on whether Mr. Monsod who is a lawyer, has been engaged in the “practice of law for at least ten years” reached the SC which became a landmark case.
Practice of Law
In a decision penned by Justice Paras, it opened with “We are faced here with a controversy of far-reaching proportions”.(Cayetano vs. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991) Far reaching it is because this decision settled the very definition of the practice of law which is also required of one who is applying as a trial court judge who may one day become a Supreme Court justice. Monsod was nominated by Corazon Aquino for the Chairmanship of the COMELEC. The Commission on Appointment confirmed Atty. Monsod’s appointment prompting Atty. Renato Cayetano (former senator) to question it before the Supreme Court as a taxpayer. Cayetano believes that Monsod did not practice law for at least 10 years prior to his appointment since most of his works were as corporate counsel or in administration and he appeared only a few times in court. In this case, the Court said that although the popular notion that the practice of law is arguing the case of clients in the court room, this must not be the standard since there are other activities that a lawyer performs that require his knowledge and expertise in law and procedure. The High Court came up with a more open and a larger definition of “practice of law”. It acknowledged the fact that most of a lawyer’s time is not just spent inside courts but also in giving legal advice, drafting legal documents, and other activities that require the use of one’s knowledge of the law. The Court adopted this definition of practice of law: “The term, as commonly understood, means “an individual or organization engaged in the business of delivering legal services.” (Ibid) The SC said: “Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.” (Ibid) At the end of the decision denying Cayetano’s petition, the SC once again pronounced this legal maxim: “We must interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by the spirit that giveth life”. In this case the SC adopted a more liberal interpretation of the law and gave emphasis on the intent of the framers of the Constitution instead of being restricted by the technicalities of the words used.
