1. Judge Barte view on the definition of the practice of law vs.

Practice of Law Defined in the case

of Cayetano vs. Monsod.

I’d prefer the meaning of Practice of Law as defined in the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod.

The traditional meaning of the practice of law as provided for by Judge Barte covers
more on litigation perse with actual client-lawyer relationship involve. As sited by Judge Barte,
Practice of Law as defined in the case of People vs. Villanueva, “One is said to be engaged in the
practice of law if he is customarily or habitually holding himself out to the public as a lawyer, and
demanding paying payment for such service. The appearance as counsel on one occasion, is not
conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private practice of law. Preparing documents
and rendering legal services are within the term practice of law.” As mentioned, the idea of
practice of law in the case is leaning towards the establishment of lawyer-client relationship or
to much more conservative extent, limited to the practice of it as a profession with every service
and production is dealt with payment and establishment of an engagement for professional
service in court. Judge Barte also emphasized the difference in the occasional drafting of simple
deeds and other instruments when not conducted as an occupation against preparation of
pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the drawing of deeds
and other instruments and conveyancing. The latter was preferred as considered a practice of
law on the context of not limiting the practice of law in the courts but with implication that such
sevice as already been entered in to as a profession before anything else.
The case of Cayetano vs. Monsod has expanded the encapsulated, conservative and
limited definition or coverage the practice of law. As discussed in the case, Renato Cayetano
questions the decision of the commission on appointments as grave abuse of discretion
confirming the appointment of Christian Monsod as chairman of the COMELEC for in Cayetano’s
view, Monsod does not meet the qualification set forth by the law more specifically the Section
I(I), Article XII-C of the 1973 Constitution, more particularly the phrase “who have been engaged
in the practice of law for at least ten years”. The court decided favouring the appointment of
Monsod as qualified and within the meaning of the practice of law. That, to my opinion, is not
only logical but also is also fair.
The practice of law should not be constrained or limited to the obvious practice of law in
litigation and more so limited to the engagement of client-lawyer relationship as mentioned
above. The practice of law, as mentioned in the case, “should be interpreted in the light of the
various definitions of the term Practice of Law. Particularly the modern concept of law practice,
and taking into consideration intended by the framers of the constitution, Atty. Monsod’ 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. In view thereof, it has expounded the term Practice of Law into a
dynamic and comprehensive definition of the term. To limit practice of law to one aspect of its
wide spectrum would be illogical since Law covers much more than litigation in courts, client-
lawyer relationship and the activities covered within it. Lawyers cannot all be expected to be
 perform one aspect of the law just to be within the aspect of practice of law which in our
constitution has more significance when it comes to requirements or qualifications to certain
positions in the government. To go with the traditional meaning would force other lawyers to
persist on practicing law within its limited definition just to avail of its advantages, leaving the
other spectrum of law unmanned or lacking in its presence. This may lead to problems of
catastrophic proportions when it comes to the significance of lawyers in the order of society,
where everyone would be litigants and no other legal service would be available. It has been
used in more ways than one, and should not be limited for to do so would mean that such other
activities, although involves knowledge and expertise in law would be meaningless to the
practice or could be downright termed as non-practice of law which would lead me to the
aspect of fairness.
Practice of law should also be defined in the modern way as to give justice and fairness
to non-litigants and to those not covered by the term practice of law. It has been said that
litigation is more prestigious than corporate law or that the appearance in the courts is the true
essence of the term of practicing law or being a lawyer. I find that statement as being unfair. As
discussed, the practice of law should be more than usual litigation of lawyers in court and the
services covered within but should also cover the other wide spectrum of the practice and
should be considered in equal footing as to the former. It would be unfair to consider the other
practice like corporate law et al. not considered as litigation as less of the practice of law since
both activities involve legal expertise and knowledge on whichever aspect of law is involve. To
belittle one aspect would be to limit the practice of law to certain individuals and limiting service
of law to a certain extent. It is also said that commencing into litigation is usually the last straw
that we pull in handling disputes and other arguments of everyday life therefore handling
situations or negotiations in the light of legal knowledge helps in the fulfilment of law as a
profession, though not lucrative as how the non-lawyers view it should still be considered as
practice of law.

2. Legal Advise and Legal Counseling.

Legal Advise is the giving of one’s opinion concerning certain matters involving law and
using the knowledge and expertise in law to render related information for the proper
resolution of such problem or subject matter as the case may be. On the other hand, Legal
Counseling is similar to legal advise as to its purpose of giving of one’s opinion on matters of the
law using legal expertise and knowledge of its proper resolution as mentioned above but within
the context of a lawyer-client relationship.