Practice Court
Practice Court
Practice Court
PRACTICE OF LAW
PRACTICE OF LAW
Rule 138, Section 1. Who may practice law - Any
person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or
hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the
provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law.
Concept of the Practice of Law
Generally, to engage in the practice is to do any of those acts which are
characteristic of the legal profession (In re: David, 93 Phil. 46). It covers any activity, in
or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal principles, practice or
procedure and calls for legal knowledge, training and experience (PLA vs. Agrava, 105
Phil. 173).
Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210
***Practice of Law means any activity in or out of court which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the
practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the legal profession.
Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which devise or
service requires the use, in any degree, of legal knowledge or skill.
People vs. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 111
***Strictly speaking, the word practice of law implies the customary or habitual holding
of oneself to the public as a lawyer and demanding compensation for his services.
***Private practice in more than an isolated appearance for it consist of frequent
customary actions, a succession of acts of the same kind. An isolated appearance may,
however, amount to practice in relation to the rule prohibiting some persons from
engaging in the exercise of the legal profession.
In cases before the MTC, a party may conduct his case or litigation in person,
with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose (Sec. 34, Rule
138, RRC).
Before any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally (Ibid)
2 In a criminal case before the MTC in a locality where a duly licensed member of
the Bar is not available, the judge may appoint a non-lawyer who is
1 resident of the province, and
2 of good repute for probity and ability to aid the accused in his defense
(Rule 116, Sec. 7, RRC)
Q
.
A and B who are law students entered their appearances before the Municipal Court
as private prosecutors in a criminal case. This was disallowed by the trial judge. Is
this correct?
A
.
NO. A non-lawyer may appear as a friend of the party before the Municipal Courts
under Section 34, Rule 138 Rules of Court; he may make such appearances either as
defense counsel or private prosecutor under the control and supervision of the fiscal.
The permission of the fiscal is not necessary for the appearance of a private
prosecutor, although if he so wishes, the fiscal may disallow participation in the trial
by handling the case personally. (Catimbuhan, et al. vs. Hon. Cruz, G.R. No. 5181314, Nov.29, 1983)
Public Officials who cannot engage in the private practice of law in the Philippines:
1. Judges and other officials as employees of the Superior Court (Rule 148, Sec. 35,
RRC).
10 Officials and employees of the OSG (Ibid).
14 Ombudsman and his deputies (Art. IX, Sec. 8 (2nd par.), 1987 Constitution).
15 All governors, city and municipal mayors (R.A. No. 7160, Sec. 90).
16 Those who, by special law, are prohibited from engaging in the practice of their
legal profession
Q
.
A
.
A civil service officer or employee whose duty or responsibility does not require his
entire time to be at the disposal of the government may not engage in private practice
of law without the written permit from the head of the department concerned.
However, government officials who by express mandate of the law are prohibited
from practicing law may not, even with the consent of the department head, engage
in the practice of law. If so authorized by the department head, he may, in an isolated
case, act as counsel for a relative or close family friend.
A government official forbidden to practice law may be held criminally liable
for doing so. An officer or employee of the civil service who, as a lawyer, engages in
the private practice of law without a written permit from the department head
concerned may be held administratively liable therefor.
Q. The City of Manila hired the services of Atty. Bautista of the ABC Law Offices to
represent it in case pending before the RTC. Can Atty. Bautista validly represent it?
A. NO. A local government unit could not hire a private attorney to represent. The
Under the Local Government Code (R.A. 7180, Sec. 90), Sanggunian members
may practice their professions provided that if they are members of the Bar, they shall
not:
2 appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government
unit or any unit, agency, or instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;
3 appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the
national or local government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his
office;
4 collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the
local government unit of which he is an official; and
5 use property and personnel of the Government except when the Sanggunian
member concerned is defending the interest of the government.
FACTS:
1 COMELEC QUALITIFACTION: member of the Philippine Bar who have been
FACTS:
Monsod was nominated by President Aquino as Chairman of the Comelec. The
Commission on Appointments confirmed the appointment despite Cayetano's objection,
based on Monsod's alleged lack of the required qualification of 10 year law practice.
Cayetano filed this certiorari and prohibition. The 1987 constitution provides in Section
1, Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and
six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time
of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and
must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding
elections.However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the
Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Monsod has been engaged in the practice of law for 10 years.
2. Whether or not the Commission on Appointments committed grave abuse of discretion
in confirming Monsods appointment.
HELD:
1. YES. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court. It
embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special
proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients, and
other works where the work done involves the determination of the trained legal mind of
the legal effect of facts and conditions (PLA vs. Agrava.) The records of the 1986
constitutional commission show that the interpretation of the term practice of law was
liberal as to consider lawyers employed in the Commission of Audit as engaged in the
practice of law provided that they use their legal knowledge or talent in their respective
work. The court also cited an article in the January 11, 1989 issue of the Business Star,
that lawyers nowadays have their own specialized fields such as tax lawyers, prosecutors,
etc., that because of the demands of their specialization, lawyers engage in other works or
functions to meet them. These days, for example, most corporation lawyers are involved
in management policy formulation. Therefore, Monsod, who passed the bar in 1960,
worked with the World Bank Group from 1963-1970, then worked for an investment
bank till 1986, became member of the CONCOM in 1986, and also became a member of
the Davide Commission in 1990, can be considered to have been engaged in the practice
of law as lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, etc.
2. NO. The power of the COA to give consent to the nomination of the Comelec
Chairman by the president is mandated by the constitution. The power of appointment is
essentially within the discretion of whom it is so vested subject to the only condition that
the appointee should possess the qualification required by law. From the evidence, there
is no occasion for the SC to exercise its corrective power since there is no such grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the CA.