"FIR" Method in Case Digests ..........................

62
Historical Discussions 67
V. Examination Questions Analysis 61
Objective and Problem Type Questions ........... 61
The "FIR" Pattern in Problem Type
I
Questions
Seeing the Syllogism in the Problem ............... INTRODUCTION
Facts to Elements (of law) Correspondence .....
at is logic? Here's an answer from Comedy Central:
VI. Argumentative writing
"Two rednecks, Bubba and Cooter, decided that they
Argumentative Writing Defined . .
weren't going anywhere in life and thought they should
The Syllogistic Pattern in Argumentative go to college to get ahead.
Writing 73 Bubba goes in first, and the professor advises him to take
math, history and logic.
"What's logic?" asked Bubba.

The professor answered, "Let me give you an example. Do

you own a weed-whacker?"
"I sure do," answered the redneck.
"Then I can assume, using logic, that you have a yard,"
replied the professor.
"That's real good," the redneck responded in awe.

The professor continued, "Logic will also tell me that since

you have a yard, you also have a house."
Impressed, the redneck shouted, "AMAZING!"
"And since you own a house, logic dictates that you have
a wife.,,
"Betty Mae! This is incredible!"
"Finally, since you have a wife, logically I can assume
that you are heterosexual," said the professor.
`You're absolutely right! Why, that's the most fascinating
thing I ever heard of! I can't wait to take this logic class."
Bubba, proud of the new world opening up to him, walked
back into the hallway where Cooter was waiting.
"So, what classes are ya takin?" he asks.
"Math, history and logic," replies Bubba.

-.--.--- X -.
-1-
 2 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING
Cooter asks, "What's logic?"
"Let me give you an example. Do ya own a weed-eater?"
«No.,,
`You're gay, ain't ya?''1
0naseriousnote,logiccomesfromtheGreekword"Zogos,"
whichliterallymeans"word"or"speech."Italsomeans"aplea,"
"reason" or "discourse."2 The early Greek philosophers began
using this term to mean "principle of order and knowledge.''3
As a principle, it is used as a tool to evaluate the value of an
assertion or truth claims.
Today, logic is popularly defined as "the science and
art of correct thinking."4 Science is a systematized body of
knowledge. Logic as science simply means that it employs the
same approach and attitude in studying its object.5 It relies on
careful observation, critical analysis, and conclusive rational
proofs.
Arguments are the object of study in logic. Here, they
are carefully considered and critically analyzed. Most impor-
tantly, their conclusions are evaluated as to how necessary or
probable their assertions are.
Historical Background of Logic
Historically, the development of logic as a study can
be traced back to t.he Greek Pre-Socratic philosophers,6
starting with Thales of Miletus around 585 B.C. These pre-
]http://jokes.cc.com/funny-blue-collar/edx2nzthighly-illogical. - Accessed
date: October 28, 2016.
2https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos. -Accessed date: April 19, 2017.
3Richard D. MCRIrahan, A Presocrctjc Reoczer, Hackett Publishing Com.,
Inc., 1995.
4Andrew H. Bachhuber, S.J., Jn{roc!L4cfjo7t ro I;ogjc, Appleton-Century-
Croft, Inc., New York, 1957, p. 1.
5Bachhuber observes the tendency today to restrict the meaning of the
word "science" to only empirical or natural sciences such as Physics. He main-
tains that logic is a science in that sense that "it is certain and systematized
knowledge'', p. 4.
6Richard D. MCKirahan, Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., Indianapo-
lis, 1996.
I - INTRODUCTION 3
Socratic philosophers asked questions about the nature of
the physical world. They proposed various answers and theo-
ries to these questions. With these varied answers, the need
to find out which one of them are true became imperative.
Plato (428-347 B.C.), at least began asking the veracity
and validity of ideas and theories. He asked, "Who£ Zs j£ £ho£
can properly be called true or false?", "What is the nature of
the connection between the assumptions of a valid argument
and its conclusion?", "Wh,at is the nature of defirdiion?"7 THis
undoubtedly started a way of seeing logic as an object of study.
Later, logic became itself a branch of Philosophy.8
It was Aristotle (384 B.C.) who began to actually lay
down the ground for logic as an object of study in itself. In his
work "Topics," he laid down the nature 6f reasoning to quote,
"...reasoning is an argument in xphich certcrin things being laid
down, something other than necesse;ry cormes about through,
£hem. ''9 This describes what we now know as "syllogism.'' Syllo-
gism is a form of argument where the conclusion is drawn
from a set of premises. The typical examples of syllogism are:
"All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal."
And:
"Socrates is mortal.
Plato is mortal®
Aristotle is mortal.
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are all men.
Therefore, all men are mortal."
As we can see, the form above contains statements which
are called premises followed by a conclusion. The latter comes
as the necessary outcome of the premises. The first example
7https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic. -Accessed date: April 19,
2017.
8Andrew Bachhuber explains that logic ``...introduces us to philosophy
by inviting (or even compelling) us to philosophize. It introduces us to the
abstract thinking in philosophy and familiarizes us with some of its technical
terminology'', p. 9.
9Aristotle, Tapjcs, as translated by W.A. Pickard, Cambridge.
4 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING
is what is known as "deductive reasoning'' and the second is
known as "inductive reasoning."
Deductive and Inductive R6asonings
Deductive reasoning is an argument where the conclusion
is the necessary outcome of the premises while inductive
reasoning is one where the conclusion is a probable outcome
of the premises.
In the first example, we start with a general statement
about man - that he is mortal. If we grant that this statement
is true, then the conclusion that Socrates is mortal necessarily
"follows" as a matter of course. Socrates being "man" is
effectively included in the set of "mortals" based on the first
premise. This second premise ``necessitates" the conclusion,
"Socrates is mortal." This is deductive reasoning. In logic this
"necessity" is known as inference.
In the second example, we started with a series of par-
ticular statements, namely: Socrates is mortal, Plato is mortal,
and Aristotle is mortal. If we grant these statements to be
true, must we conclude from these that all men are mortals?
Does this conclusion "follows" from these statements?
For us to truly conclude that all men are mortals, we have
to account for all men in the world not just Socrates, Plato,
and Aristotle. This. conclusion therefore does not "follow" and
hence, inconclusive.
However, is it probable that based on our account of these
three persons we can conclude that all men are mortal? Yes,
but such conclusion is only "probable,'' meaning, it is may be
true or not. In other words, the conclusion is falsifiable. This
is inductive reasoning, and it is a probabilistic reasoning.
To identify an argument as deductive or inductive, is not
a walk in the park.10 How the premises relate to the conclusion
]°Patrick J. Hurley explains, "the distinction between inductive and
deductive arguments lies in the strength of an argument's inferential claim.
In most argu'ments, however, the strength of this claim is not explicitly stated,
I - INTRODUCTION 6
is key. If the premises are such that the conclusion is necessary,
then it is a deductive reasoning. On the other hand, if the
premises are such that the conclusion is only probable, then it
is an inductive reasoning. But let us move quickly to our main
subject --the Zegciz reaso7i£7tg.
Legal Reasoning
In the legal profession, logical reasoning is a vital tool.
Legal knowledge is formed by the rules on logic. What we have
today as legal knowledge is the product of logical reasoning.
Vern R. Walker writes that legal reasoning is the "...£ooZ zue
use in interpreting constitutions, statutes, and regulations, in
balancing fundamental principles and policies, in adopting
and modifying legal rules, in applying those rules to cases, in
evaluating euidence, cund in rmahing ultirmate decisions." LI
This means that a law student, in pursuing a law degree,
and a lawyer, writing his pleadings, must use logical reasoning
for such respective tasks. It is the student's tool for law studies
and the lawyer's tool for law practice. This is true with the job
of judges and justices. Court decisions are formed using legal
reasoning. Logical reasoning therefore is the bedrock of all
legal knowledge.
In the following chapters, we will see how the patterns
of reasoning that are taken from logic are applied to legal
reasoning. We will see how these can apply when analyzing
the law, court cases, including law school and bar examination
questions.
so we must use our interpretive skills to evaluate it." Patrick J. Huerley, A
Concise Jntrodt4c££on fo Logic, Wadsworth Publishing Company, California,
1991, p. 29.
ITVorn WBLmer, mscouering the Logic of Legal Reasoning, Hofstra Iia;w
Bet;£etu,(http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article
=2283& context=hlr) -Accessed date: March 28, 2017.

11
BASIC PATTERNS 0F REASONING
erything in the universe has form - squares, rec-
tangles, circles, triangles, etc. These forms make up all things
around us. The early Greek philosophers observed these
forms when they studied geometry. They saw these shapes
as repeating patterns found in leaves, trees, mountains, sky,
and everything else in nature. What is more profound is that
these philosophers observed that these shapes or patterns
can be understood mathematically. This became the way they
viewed mathematics.1
Aristotle applied this notion of shapes and patterns in
logical reasoning. Like mathematics, reasoning has a pattern,
a shape. Through these patterns, assertions can be evalua-
ted. The truth and validity of any assertion can be known
by evaluating reasoning patterns. These patterns in turn,
make up the rules of logic. We have introduced its most basic
form in Chapter 1, namely, the syllogism and the patterns
of reasoning such as deductive and inductive reasoning. All
these, along with other kinds of arguments such as arguing
from authority, arguing from definition, and arguing from
analogy are the very methods used by lawyers and judges in
formulating legal concepts, interpreting statutes and resolving
legal problems.2
*
However, legal reasoning adds its own unique pattern.
Lawyers and judges use the "FIR" method. FIR stands for
LKeith Devlin, 7lbe J14lofh Gene, Phoenix, 2001, p. 10.
Z`Jerr\ W8Hker, Discovering the Logic of Legal Reasoning, Hofstra Law
Reuzezu,(http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=
-6-
2283&context =hlr) -Accessed date: March 28, 2017.
11 - BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING 7
"facts," "issues,'' and "ruling." Facts refer to the factual content
of a legal problem, the issues are the points of contentions
therein, and the ruling is the conclusions or more specifically,
the decisions of the courts in the resolution of such legal
problem. This is also the underlying pattern used by lawyers
in writing pleadings and other papers such as motions or
petitions submitted to the court. Law students are also trained
to use this pattern in digesting published decisions of the
Supreme Court. We will discuss this further in Chapter 4.
Identifying Arguments
Understanding legal reasoning starts with identifying
arguments. Arguments are the specimen in learning legal
reasoning. To an untrained mind, an argument is lost in the
Bea of words:
Ex;ample 1:
``They placed social harmony above individual rights,
welfare of the community over individual satisfaction,
compassion above apathy, sacrifice over self-fulfillment,
spirituality above. materialism, and they taught that the
social life of a person must always be in harmony with
the universe. Thus, under such ideology, the indigenes'
customary law developed such notions as communal own-
ership of land, the right to ancestral domain, acquisition
of virgin land through family cultivation, concepts of eco-
logical (as distinguished from environmental) justice, and
development of methods of resolving disputes by using a
`go-between', or by the use of metaphors instead of logical
reasoning.''3
This long winded paragraph, which is actually composed
of only two sentences, appears to be highly confusing at first
glance. But by carefully looking at certain "key" words in this
paragraph, its main idea is shown and its argument is seen.
Here we see the word "thus" which by itself, indicates some
gpalclf rco AL. AIg8Lhin, The Irf luence of Ph,thppine In_di_gen?us Lc_I_win th,e
DeuelobwientofNeulconcbp.ofsocialJu8tice,TBpdonr\al,Octher-Decewher
2011, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 8-4.
 8 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING
kind of a concluding thought. This indicates that from the
word "thus" everything that follows is a conclusion or a part
thereof. With this in mind, we can simply mentally add the
word ``because" at the beginning of the first sentence, and we
can now see its argument:
"(Because) They placed social harmony above indi-
vidual rights, welfare of the community over individual
satisfaction, compassion above apathy, sacrifice over
self-fulfillment, spirituality above materialism, and they
taught that the social life of a person must always be in
harmony with the universe.
Zlfazts, under such ideology, the indigenes' customary
law developed such notions as communal ownership of
land, the right to ancestral domain, acquisition of virgin
land through family cultivation, concepts of ecological
(as distinguished from environmental) justice, and deve-
lopment of methods of resolving disputes by using a `go-
between', or by the use of metaphors instead of logical
reasoning."
Now we know that the argument is siinply this: Because
they (the indigenous
Importance referred to
in social harmony in community
and this paragraph) put
welfare
over individual needs and desires, indigenous custom-
ary law develop the following concepts, namely, com-
munal ownership, right to ancestral domain, etc. The
argument is that indigenous customary law is such because
of the indigenous peoples' values.
Argument Indicators
What we did here is simply identify an "argument indi-
cator"whichistheword"thus"intheexampleno.1.Argument
indicatorshelpusunlocktheintendedargumentinstatements
like the example above.
The following are the typical examples of concluding
words which serves as argument indicators:4
4See Patrick J. Hurley, p. 3.
11 - BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING 9
therefore, hence
whence accordingly
wherefore thus
consequently it follows that
we may conclude entails that
We may infer implies that
It must be that as a result
Whenever we see these words or any words that con-
cludes, we know that an argument exists. Another argument
indicator in the example above is the word "because" which
we added to example no. 1. When statements begin with
"because" it indicates an argument. The word is indicative of
some kind of a cause and effect: "becoL4se A fa£Zzed A, A js Zjclbze
for h,omici,de."
Below is another example:
Excunple 2:
"Because preliminary investigation began as a judi-
cial process conducted by a judge to determine reasonable
ground and probable cause whether or not to issue a
warrant of arrest, the present preliminary investigation
effectively disallow the cooperation of the police and pro-
secutors in case build-up and investigation crucial to the
successful prosecution and conviction of criminals."5
Here, we see the word "because" from the start of this
sentence. It is indicative of the cause of some effect. What is
the cause here? The cause is that preliminary investigation
was conducted as a judicial process. What is the effect? The
effect is this: preliminary investigation disallows police and
prosecutors to "cooperate" or work together to build up the
criminal investigation crucial to the conviction of criminals.
This observation is made because in preliminary investiga-
tions, prosecutors are expected to assume an impartial role
like that of judges in determining probable cause. In such
5Leila M. De Lima, Geronimo L. Sy, A Shor£ Hfsfory o/ Prezjmjnclry
J7iues££gafjo7L, IBP Journal, October-December 2011, Vol. 36, No. 4, p. 84.
 10 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING
system, they distance themselves from police investigators
and this is counterproductive in the development of a criminal
case according to this argument because these prosecutors are
the ones who will eventually prosecute the case in court.
Another argument indicator which is often used is the
term, "admittedly." The idea is quite obvious: something is
admittedastrueorobviouslyagreeable.Itmaybeanevidence,
a testimony, or a theory and the same is admitted as true or
considered as obviously agreeable.
Exarmple 3:
``Admittedly, petitioners had been granted a right of
way through the other adjacent lot owned by the Spouses
Arce. In fact, other lot owners use the said outlet in going
to and coming from the public highway. Clearly, there is
an existing outlet to and from the public road."6
Here,whatissaidtobeadmittedistheexistenceofaright
of way. The use of lot owners of such passage way as an outlet
to the public road shows an obvious conclusion that a right of
way exists. The conclusion of this argument is indicated by
the word "Clearly."
Nature of Arguments
Arguments are statements which try to prove something
as true (or false).7 In other words, these statements have
``evidentiary" nature in them that qualify them as arguments.
In the published court decisions of the Philippine Supreme
CourtknownasthesupremecourtReportsAnnotated(SCRA),
we can identify the arguments of the following participating
courts in a case, namely, the trial court, the Court of Appeals,
and of course, the Supreme Court itself. The same is true in
laborcaseswheretherearelevelssuchastheLaborArbiter,the
NLRC, and of course, the Court of Appeals, and the Supreme
6n®u:hpd :TonTS_u_rv.ey of ?01_0 S_upre_me Court Deci8i,ons in Property and
Ztonc! Z3egisfro}jon, IBP Journal, October-December 2011, Vol. 36, No. 4, p.113.
7Patrick Hurley, A Conc}.se Jn!rodztcf ion fo fogjc, Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Belmont California, 1991, p. 13.
11 - BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING 11
Court. It is important that in reading the SCRA, we must be
able to identify and evaluate all the arguments made by the
lower courts therein and not just look at the arguments made
by the Supreme Court. However, the arguments of the lower
courts in the SCRA are normally written in the third person
as they are simply referred to by the Supreme Court. But we
can deduce these arguments by carefully understanding what
the statements say about them.
Let us look at some examples.
Ex}ample 4..
"The RTC also ruled that treachery attended the
killing of the victim for the prosecution's evidence shows
that accused-appellant suddenly and unexpectedly
appeared and shot the victim who did not sense any
danger upon him.''8
Is there an argument in this statement? Yes. The Regional
Trial Court (RTC) is arguing that the crime committed by
the accused is murder because the killing is by means of
treachery. Treachery in the Revised Penal Code refers to the
manner of committing the crime. Killing a person can either
be homicide or murder depending on the presence of qualifving
circumstances such as, in this example, treachery.
With treachery, the killing is committed in such a way
that its execution is ensured without danger to the perpe-
trator. Here, the RTC argues that the accused "suddenly and
unexpectedly appeared and shot the victim who did not sense
any danger upon him" which connotes treachery. The trial
court is trying to prove that the crime committed is murder
because of the treacherous nature of the attack. All these are
shown to us by the example given.
Excunple 5..
"He testified that he was able to positively identify
accused appellant at the time of the shooting because the
8People v. Llobera, G.R. No. 203066, August 5, 2015.
 12 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING
place where the shooting occurred was illuminated by the
moon, the lights from the neighbors' houses, and the lamp
gasera at his uncle's house.''9
Here, a person testified that he could identify the accused
at the time of the shooting because of the following factors:
the place was illuminated by the moon, the lights from the
neighbor's houses, and the lamp from an uncle's house. By his
testimony of identifying the accused, he is asserting that the
latter was the one who shot the victim. It is relatively easy to
deduce the arguments even from these statements.
Example 6..
``The case at bar takes us to a most difficult area of
constitutional law where man stands accountable to an
authority higher than the state. To be held on balance are
the states interest and the respondents' religious freedom.
In this highly sensitive area of law, the task of balancing
between authority and liberty is most delicate because to
the person invoking religious freedom, the consequences
of the case are not only temporal."10
From this example, we see a first person statement by
the Supreme Court. Do you find an argument in these state-
ments? Not really. These statements do not appear to be
proving something as true. They are statements that inform
the difficult task of balancing public interest and religious
freedom. They are declarative sentences by the court about
certain things. They can be informational but are not in them-
selves arguments. The words we see here are preliminary
statements which are normally found in Supreme Court cases.
Let us have another example from the same case:
Example 7..
"Estrada argued, through counsel, that the Declara-
tion of Pledging Faithfulness recognizes the supremacy of
the proper public authorities such that she bound herself
9People v. Llobera, sz4pro.
]°Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003.
13
11 - BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING
to seek means to...legalize their union. Thus, even assum-
ing arguendo that the declaration is valid and binding in
her congregation, it is binding only to her co-members in
the congregation and serves only the internal purpose of
displaying to the rest of the congregation that she and
her mate are a respectable and morally upright couple.
Their religious belief and practice, however, cannot over-
ride the norms of conduct required by law for government
employees. To rule otherwise would create a dangerous
precedent as those who cannot legalize their live-in rela-
tionship can simply join the Jehovah's Witnesses congre-
gation and use their religion as a defense against legal
liability.,,11
Here, we are informed right away that "Estrada argued."
By careful reading of this paragraph, we find that Estrada
argued to disprove the validity of the so-called "Declaration
of Pledging Faithfulness." He argued that the document itself
recognizesthesupremacy,i.e.,thepriorityofpublicauthorities
(existing laws on marriage), and that such document, being a
private document, is binding only to private persons, particu-
larly in this example, the members of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Cited here is Estrada's reasoning:
"Thus, even assuming arguendo that the declaration
is valid and binding in her congregation, it is binding only
to her co-members in the congregation and serves only
the internal purpose of displaying to the rest of the con-
gregation that she and her mate are a respectable and
morally upright couple."
In learning legal reasoning, one must develop the ability
to identify the argument in a statement. This is a vital skill
that must be acquired by a student of law if he is determined
to succeed in his pursuit of legal profession.
Deductive and Inductive Pattern in Court Cases
At this point, we shall discuss the most important and
most basic patterns of argument in legal reasoning, namely,
llEstrada v. Escritor, sL4Prc!.
 14 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING
the deductive and the inductive patterns. Again, deductive
reasoning is one where the conclusion is the necessary out-
come of the premises, while inductive reasoning is one where
the conclusion is the "probable" outcome of the premises.
The crucial thing to do is this: £o be c}bJe fo jde7tfj/y the
"syllogisitcal" pattern of the argument in court cases. Vv i-rr[ush
be able to construct its syllogism and identify what kind of
argument (deductive or inductive) is put forward.
From thereon, we will apply this technique in the ex-
amples in this book. Let us now construct the syllogism of
Estrada's argument in the example no. 7:
1. Private instruments are binding only to private
persons who are parties therein;
2. The Declaration of pledging Faithfulness is drawn
by the members of the Jehovah's Witnesses who are
private persons;
3. Hence, it is binding only to its members.
By identifying and constructing the syllogistical pattern
of an argument, we can easily evaluate its reasoning. With
this technique, we can say that the argument above is a
deductive argument where the conclusion "follows" from the
premises. If premise no. 1 is true: private instruments are
binding only to private persons who are parties therein, and
if factual premise no. 2 is also true: the document was drawn
and signed by private persons, then the conclusion no. 3: the
document binds only the parties to it ``follows'' or "necessitates''
from these given premises. That is the nature of a deductive
argument.
Let us have other example:
Exarmple 8..
``Firstly, the court is of the opinion that granting the
petition would be more in consonance with the principles
of justice and equity. With his sexual re-assignment,
petitioner, who has always felt, thought, and acted like
a woman, now possesses the physique of a female. Peti-
11 - BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING 15
tioner's misfortune to be trapped in a man's body is not
his own doing and should not be in any way taken against
him."12
Example no. 8 is a petition filed seeking to "correct" the
entries of the name and gender in a birth certificate. The
petitioner wanted to change his name "Rommel" to "Mely"
and his gender being a "Male" to "Female." He presented the
following allegations: that he was already a female physically
due to his sex re-assignment surgery, and that this now
created a factual discrepancy in his birth certificate needing
the latter to be corrected. The trial court granted his petition
and its argument is the one quoted above.
Let us construct the syllogism for this example.
1. Petitioner always feels, acts, and thinks like a
Woman;
2. Heis awomantrappedin a man'sbody;
3. This is a misfortune and the petitioner is a victim
thereof;
4. Hence, granting his petition is just and equitable.
The lower court is using the inductive reasoning. Its pre-
mises contains particular facts such as: feeling, acting, and
thinking as a woman by the petitioner, which are then used
as the basis in concluding: that the petitioner is "a woman
trapped in a man's body," that his situation is "a misfortune"
and that to grant his petition would be "just and equitable."
Noticeably, statements mos. 2,3,4 are the concluding state-
ments for this inductive argument.
We already learned that the conclusions of an inductive
reasoning are "probabilistic," which means they are more or
less true. The conclusions drawn by the trial court are highly
"improbable" or "unlikely." That petitioner is ``a woman
trapped in a man's body," and that the same is a "misfortune,"
and finally that this is an issue of "justice" do not "follow"
12Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174680, October 22, 2007.
16 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING
from the particular premise given here. This is a` fallacious
reasoning known as argument "7?o7t seqztjfz4r" which means
that the conclusion/s does/do not follow from the premise or
premises.
Further, the statement concluding that the petitioner
is a "woman trapped in a man's body" is at best a metaphor
drawn from subjective personal feelings of the petitioner.
They are "personal opinions" that do not factor in primarily
the resolutions of court cases.13 Courts of law deal only with
facts and law and not with metaphors or any kind of literary
devices.
Let us proceed to another example in the same case.
Example 9..
"Before a person can legally change his given name,
he must present proper or reasonable cause or any com-
pelling reason justifying such change. In addition, he
must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true
and official name. In this case, he failed to show, or even
allege, any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of
using is true and official name."14
This argument is clearly a deductive argument. It starts
with a general rule about changing one's given name, i.e., that
a person must show "reasonable cause" or "compelling reason"
for him to change his given name. Additionally, such person
must show that he suffers prejudice as a result of using his
current given name. In this case, the petitioner failed to show
any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using his true
name.
Although the conclusion is not spelled out here, we
know what it is because, again, in a deductive argument the
conclusion follows from the premises. The change of name
here cannot be granted.
]3Under Rule 130, Section 50, last par., of the Rules of Court, a witness
may testify on his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance
of a person.
L4Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174680, October 22, 2007.
11 - BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING 17
The syllogisms for this argument are as follows:
1. Aperson may change his given name if he can show
reasonable or compelling reason for such change or
that the use of his given name causes him prejudice.
2. In this case, (he) failed to show any reasonable or
compelling reason for the change of his given name,
and neither did he show any prejudice in using such
given name.
3. Therefore, (he) cannot be allowed to change his given
name.
In law, there is what is known as "circumstantial evi-
dence." Circumstantial evidence is an indirect evidence; it
tends to prove indirectly the existence or non-existence of a
fact or event.15 In criminal cases, circumstantial evidence is
sufficient to convict a person when: a) there are more than
one circumstance, b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived are proven, c) the combination of all the circumstances
is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.16
Looking at this criterion, we see circumstantial evidence
as akin to an inductive argument because the conclusion
(conviction in a criminal case) is derived from particular cir-
cumstances. Let's take a look at the case of Viray v. People
of the Philippines.17
Viray was employed as a dog keeper and was charged
with the crime of qualified theft. His employer alleged that
she locked the doors of her house and left Viray to attend the
dogs in her compound. When the employer came home, she
noticed several of her things missing - jewelry, game boy,
cell phones, CD players; and that the front door of her house
was destroyed. She also found a plastic bag near her bedroom
which contained a t-shirt and a pair of shorts belonging to
Viray.
L5www.freedictionary.com. -Accessed date: March 28, 2017.
]6Section 4, Rule 134, Revised Rules on Evidence, Rex Book Store, Inc.,
2005, p. 472.
17G.R. No. 205180, November 11, 2013.
18 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING
Here, we have several circumstances: Viray was left with
the dogs, several personal properties of the employer were
missing, the front door was destroyed, and a plastic bag owned
by Viray found near the employer's bedroom and containing
Viray's t-shirt and shorts.
Let us now identify the inductive argument in this case.
Take note that in this case, different conclusions were drawn
by the trial court, Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court.
Example 10:
1. Viray was left with the dogs in the house of his
employer;
2. Items belonging to the employer were missing, the
front door destroyed, and a plastic bar was found
near the employer's bedroom containing Viray's
t-shirt and shorts;
3. A neighbor, a laundry woman who saw viray at the
time of the crime with a male companion carrying a
big sack, leaving the house of the complainant;
4. Another laundry woman who said she saw viray at
the time of the crime inside the house of the com-
plainant;
These are the particular premises in this case. The con-
clusions drawn from these however are varied. The trial court
convicted Viray with robbery because the door was destroyed
to get the property. It argued that there is "force upon things"
and hence the crime is robbery. The Court of Appeals says
no. According to it, Viray enjoyed the trust and confidence of
the employer because the latter entrusted her dogs with him.
Viray breached that trust and confidence when he destroyed
the door. Hence, Viray is guilty of qualified theft. The Supreme
Court however said both the trial court and the Court of
Appeals are wrong:
"The allegation in the information that the offender
is a laborer of the offended party does not by itself,
without more, create the relation of confidence and
11 - BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING 19
intimacy required by law for the imposition of the penalty
prescribed for qualified theft. Hence, the conclusion
reached by the appellate court that petitioner committed
qualified theft because he `enjoyed the confidence of the
private complainant, being the caretaker of the latter's
pets' is without legal basis. The offended party's very own
admission that the accused was never allowed to enter
the house where the stolen properties were kept refutes
the existence of the high degree of confidence that the
offender could have allegedly abused by `forcing open the
doors of the same house.' ''
The Supreme Court convicted Viray of Simple Theft only
because he was not allowed to enter the house belying the
presence of trust and confidence. It seems that the kind of
confidence needed to qualify the crime of theft is a "high degree
of confidence" which the Court did not see here. Further, what
were stolen were those things not entrusted to Viray. Had
the dogs been the things stolen, the crime would perhaps be
qualified theft. All in all, cases with circumstantial evidence
are good examples of inductive reasoning.
In sum, we have learned that legal reasoning follows
the basic patterns of logic such as deductive and inductive
syllogism.Tobetterunderstandcourtcases,weneedtoidentify
and construct the syllogistical forms of the arguments found
in them. We also learned that arguments indicators help us
unlock the logical reasoning of certain statements. In the next
chapter we will explore other patterns of legal reasoning.
Exercises:
Identify if the item is an argument or not.. If the item is
an argument, identify its argument indicator if there is any
and construct its syllogism. If the item is not an argument,
give reasons for your answer.
1. The trial court declared that Aguete did not sign the
loan documents, did not appear before the Notary
Public to acknowledge the execution of the loan
documents, did not receive the loan proceeds from
20 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING
PNB, and was not aware of the loan `until PNB
notified her in August 1978 that she and her family
should vacate the mortgaged property because of the
expiration of the redemption period. Under the Civil
Code, the effective law at the time of the transaction,
Ros could not encumber any real property of the con-
jugal partnership without Aguetes consent. Aguete
may, during their marriage and within 10 years
from the transaction questioned, ask the courts for
the annulment of the contract her husband entered
into without her consent, especially in the present
Case where her consent is required.18
2. The appellate court stated that the trial court
concluded forgery without adequate proof; thus it
was improper for the trial court to rely solely on
Aguetes testimony that her signatures on the loan
documents were forged. The appellate court dec-
lared that Aguete affixed her signatures on the
documents knowingly and with her full consent.
Assuming arguendo that Aguete did not give her
consent to Ros loan, the appellate court ruled that
the conjugal partnership is still liable because the
loan proceeds redounded to the benefit of the family.
The records of the case reveal that the loan was used
for the expansion of the family's business. Therefore,
the debt obtained is chargeable against the conjugal
Partnership.ig
3. I also believe that as an Associate Justice of the
Court (who can no longer take part if and when the
present case comes up to the Court for review), I have
the duty to express my views on any interpretation
of the applicable provisions of the 1987 Constitution
- particularly on a point that I believe had been
erroneously applied - for to condone an error and
the practices that spring from it, is to violate my
t8Aguete v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No.170166, April 6, 2011.
Rizalito Y. David v. Mary Grace Poe Llamanzares.
t9Ibid.
11 - BASIC PATTERNS OF REASONING 21
oath of office by permitting a continuing violation of
the Constitution.20
4. The respondent cannot also be considered a natural-
born Philippine citizen:
a. since her citizenship cannot be established, re-
cognized, or presumed, she had no citizenship
to reacquire under Republic Act No. 9225;
b. even if she had been a natural-born philippine
citizen, her naturalization in the U.S. rendered
her ineligible to be considered natural-born. As
a foreigner who had undergone an expedited
form of naturalization under Republic Act No.
9225, she had to perform acts to acquire Phil-
ippine citizenship and did not, therefore fall
under the Constitution's definition of a natural
born citizen.
I, therefore, vote to disqualify the respondent
Grace Poe for the position of Senator of the Republic
of the Philippines.21
5. The Cleveland standard, however, does not throw
light to the issue in the case at bar. The pronounce-
ments of the U.S. Supreme Court that polygamy is
intrinsically odious or barbaric do not apply in the
Philippines where Muslims, by law, are allowed to
practice polygamy. Unlike in Cleveland, there is no
jurisprudence in Philippine jurisdiction holding that
the defense of religious freedom of a member of the
Jehovah's Witnesses under the same circumstances
as respondent will not prevail over the laws on
adultery, co.ncubinage or some other law. We cannot
summarily conclude therefore that her conduct is
likewise so odious and barbaric as to be immoral
and punishable by law.22
2°Dissenting opinion of Justice Brion in the SET Case No. 001-15 -
21Ibi,d.
22Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003.
22 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING

Suggested Case Reading:

1. Peoplev. Ofiza, G.R. No. 203066, August 5, 2015.
2. Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, Ill
2003.
3. Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174680, October 22, OTHER PATTERNS 0F LEGAL REASONING
2007.
4. Viray v. People, G.R. No. 205180, November 11, the previous chapter, we learned about deductive and
2013. inductive reasoning, and argument indicators. In this chap-
ter, we will be dealing with other patterns of logical reasoning
that are used in legal reasoning. These patterns are the
following: "reasoning from definition,'' "if and then reasoning,"
and "reasoning from the principles of law."

Reasoning from Definition

Sometimes the key to resolving a legal problem lies in
defining a term. In such a situation, the arguments we find
center around the very definition of such a term. In logic, the
arguments are referred to as "arguments from definition."
An argument from definition "is an argument in which the
conclusion is claimed to depend merely upon the definition
of some word or phrase used in the premise or conclusion."1
There are a number of cases decided by the Supreme Court
which can be categorized as arguments from definition. Let us
take a look at some of them.
Example 11..
"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 charac-
teristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is
to give notice or render any kind of service, which device
or service requires the use in any degree of legal know-

]Patrick J. Hurley, A Coricjse JrLf rodztc££o7t fo Logic, Wadsworth Publishing

Company, Belmont California, 1991, p. 31.

-23-
 -I InE7Iv 'I'PURNIVuEE) IN IJEGAL RRASON]NG
ledge or skill'...Interpreted in the light of the `various
definitions of the term `Practice of law' particularly the
modern concept of law practice, and taking into consid-
eration the liberal construction intended by the framers
oftheConstitution,Atty.Monsod'spastwoinexperiences
as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-
entrepreneurofindustry,alawyer-negotiatorofcontracts,
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."
This example is taken from the case of Cayetano v.
Monsod.2Inthiscase,Atty.Monsodwasappointedbyformer
PresidentCorazonAquinoasChairmanoftheCommissionon
Election. Atty. Cayetano challenged the validity of Monsod's
appointment saying that the latter was not in the practice of
law for at least 10 years.
The issue here is obvious: What is the "practice of law"?
TheSupremeCourttookgreatpainsindiscussingthediverse
conceptionsofthetermhistorically,andittooknoteofwhatit
refers to as "modern concept of law practice." It then defined
the practice of law as:
1. any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
?pplicationoflaw,legalprocedure,knowledge,train-
ing and experience;
2. to give notice or render any kind of service, which
device or service requires the use in any degree of
legal knowledge or skill;
This definition was then applied favorably to Atty.
#LO_I_S?Pi..to,¥}t.."Atty..Mpnsod'spi;tu;;ri-e;i;br;*c;sV..:i:r6
t|=_n__S_at.is.fy?fteconsti!utioftalr;quiremeirt=Jki;;V;;ui;;;`i:e-n
e_n_g_:g_e_4j tn th,e practtc_e. of ,ow fror at teast te; _;_e;;;..„_fj:;.:s
now put excmpze 7to. 8 in a syllogism:
2G.R. No.100113, September 3,1991.
Ill -OTHER PATTERNS OF LEGAL REASONING 25
1. The Comelec Chairman must have engaged in the
practice of law for at least 10 years prior to his
appointment as such;
2. The practice of law means, any activity, in or out of
court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience; to
give notice or render any kind of service, which device
or service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill;
3. 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 for
more than 10 years constitute the practice of law;
4. Therefore, Atty. Monsod is qualified to be appointed
as Comelec Chairman.
Another example of argument from definition is the
case of Orceo v. Comelec.3 Here, the Comelec promulgated
Resolution No. 8714 banning the carrying or transporting of
firearms and deadly weapons during the election period. In
this resolution, airsoft guns or their replicas were included
as prohibited firearms. Orceo filed a petition challenging the
validity of Resolution No. 8714.
Orceo's reasonings are read as follows:
Exarmple 12:
1. The omnibus Election code does not include airsoft
guns and their replicas in its definition of firearms;
2. The law intends that the word "firearm'' is taken to
mean in its common and ordinary usage;
3. Including airsoft guns and their replicas in the Reso-
lution No. 8714 would have the effect of "criminal-
izing" the sport.
3G.R. No. 190779, March 26, 2010.
 26 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING
The deductive syllogism for the above-cited a`rguments,
to u)it..
1. The Omnibus Election Code prohibits the carrying
offirearmsduringtheelectionPe¥:?rfutid;
2. Airsoft guns and other gun replicas are not firearms
within the meaning of firearm in the Omnibus
Election Code;
3. Therefore, the carrying ofairsoft guns and other gun
replicas must not be prohibited during the election
period.
From Orceo's point of view, this case depended on the
meaning of the word "firearm" under the Omnibus Election
Code. This was the point of contention according to him.
But the Supreme Court did not share his view. The
Court resolved the controversy by looking at purpose of the
prohibition. The purpose, according to the Supreme Court is
t.3 av?id. +hle "...so¥}.n_g. ?i i eon: _initmidation, ;r terror during
the eJec££o7t perI.od. " This condition said the Court, frustrates
the will of the voters during the election period. The Court
reasoned that airsoft guns are indistinguishable from a real
gun to an ordinary citizen. The fear it could cause to voters is
the same fear caused by real guns.
We can put this reasoning in the following syllogism:
1. The Omnibus Election Code prohibits the carrying
and transporting of firearms during the election
periodasthesecouldcausefearandchaosfrustrating
the will of the voters;
2. Airsoft guns are so indistinguishable from real fire-
arms and they can also cause fear and chaos on the
voters;
3. Therefore, airsoft guns must be prohibited alongside
firearms on election period.4
4In the judicial world, no matter how seemingly "weak" the argument of
the Supreme Court is, such argument governs as it is the final arbiter of all
legal issues in our jurisdiction.
27
Ill - OTHER pATrERNs oF LEGAL REASoNING
Logically speaking, the conclusion here "follows" from
the premises. The major premise deals with the prevention of
fear and chaos and it is indeed true that, in all appearances,
"airsoft guns" and their replicas look very similar to real
guns. The argument is indeed valid. However, it can still be
maintained that the Election Code prohibits only "firearms"
and "airsoft guns,'' technically speaking, are not "firearms."
It can still be insisted that the issue is the very definition of
"firearm." Nevertheless, the Court's argument stands as it is
thefinalarbiterofalllegalcontroversyintheland.Clearly,the
Court upheld not the letter but the "spirit" of the prohibition
in the law.5
Let us have another example.
Exarmple 13..
"To us, premarital sex between two consenting adults
without legal impediment to marry each other who later
on married each other does not fall within the contem-
plation of ``disgraceful or immoral conduct" and "serious
misconduct'' of the Manual of Regulations for Private
Schools and the Labor Code of the Philippines.''6
These are the words of "Cheryll" who got fired from a
Catholic school for engaging in premarital sex and became
pregnant. The school fired her on the ground of "disgraceful,
immoral conduct.'' Cheryll alleged that when two unmarried
adults had sex and later married, they are not doing a "dis-
graceful or immoral conduct."
The pivotal issue here is the meaning of "disgraceful
and immoral conduct'' found in the Manual of Regulations
for Private Schools which is a ground for termination of
employmenttherein.However,themanualdidnotdefinewhat
5This principle in interpreting the law is applied when there are ambigui-
_--__ I-_ ---- I__ ___
ties in the language of the law. Ru-ben Agpalo e-xplains that "the statute shall
be so construed as to effectuate its intent and purpose, advance the remedy and
suppress the mischief contemplated by the framers." Ruben E. Agpalo, Sfciftt-
£ory ConsfrL4cfjon, Rex Book Store, Inc., 1990, p. 97.
6Leus v. St. Scholastica's College, G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015.
 28 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING
"disgraceful or immoral conduct" is. It did not give instances
constituting "disgraceful or immoral conduct."
The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the
termination of Cheryll arguing that sex outside marriage is
indeed immoral. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC's
decision. The CA has the same reasoning with the NLRC
which was stated as follows:
Example 14:
"Petitioner's pregnancy prior to marriage is scandal-
ous in itself given the work environment and social milieu
she was in. Respondent school for young ladies precisely
seeks to prevent its students from situations like this,
inculcating in them strict moral values and standards.
Beingpartoftheinstitution,petitioner'sprivateandpub-
lic life could not be separated. Her admitted premarital
sexual relations was a violation of private respondent's
prescribed standards of conduct that views pre-marital
sex as immoral because sex between a man and a woman
must only take place within the bounds of marriage."
Here, "immoral conduct" is defined in light of the nature
and the work environment of the institution. The CA argued
that the institution, being a Catholic school for young ladies,
stood for what it considered as "strict moral values and
standards." The institution maintained that sex between a
man and a woman must only be within marriage. Employees
therein must also abide by its moral values in their public and
private lives. For having engaged in premarital sex and got
pregnant, Cheryll violated that moral standard expected of
her being an employee of the institution. She can therefore be
validly terminated.
Putting the arguments in syllogism, £o zuj£:
1. This is a Catholic institution which believes that
sex must only be between a man and a woman in
marriage and that premarital sex is a "disgraceful
and immoral" conduct.
Ill -OTHER PATTERNS OF LEGAlj REASONING 29
2. Cheryll, being an employee of this institution abides
by this belief and standard of moral value.
3. Cheryll engaged in premarital sex.
4. Therefore, Cheryll committed a disgraceful and
immoral act and had violated the belief and moral
standard of the institution.7
The argument is clearly deductive and it defines "dis-
gracefulandimmoralconduct"accordingtothemoralstandard
held by the institution. The standard also set the boundary
for sex, i.e., marriage. Being deductive, the argument is tight
proof. The conclusion truly follows from the premises.
Let us see how the Supreme Court resolved this case.
Ex;cunples 15:
"That the petitioner was employed by a Catholic edu-
cational institution per se does not absolutely determine
whether her pregnancy out of wedlock is disgraceful or
immoral. There is still a necessity to determine whether
the petitioner's pregnancy out of wedlock is considered
disgraceful or immoral in accordance with the prevailing
norms of conduct.''8
The Court's argument here is this: It is not the Catholic
educational institution which would define the meaning of
disgracefulorimmoralconductbutthe"prevailingnormsof
conduct." By these words, the Supreme Court seemed to have
taken the ruler and the judge out of the Catholic institution
and flung it out to what it categorized as the "prevailing
norms of conduct." Let us put the Court's reasoning in a
syllogism.
1. The catholic institution says that pregnancy out of
wedlock is a disgraceful and immoral conduct.
2. But it does not have the authority to define what is
disgraceful and immoral conduct.
7The
premises
-`-`, I,_` ,---- ___ contain
--_---I__ complex sentences. Putting `them in a simplistic
• .J1 _ __J`.1_ _I__ -
syllogism may not be possible. Th+e aim is to construct premises without losing
vital information in the argument.
8Leus v. St. Scholastica's College, G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015.
 30 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING
Therefore, its judgment that pregnancy but of wed-
lock is disgraceful and immoral conduct cannot
prevail.
The Catholic institution says that pregnancy out of
wedlock is a disgraceful and immoral conduct;
But the ``prevailing norms of conduct'' does not view
the same as disgraceful and immoral;
Therefore, the Catholic institution's categorization
of this conduct cannot prevail.
Here, the Supreme Court effectively demolished the
arguments of the NLRC and the CA. It seemed that the
Supreme Court did not want the school to be the ruler, defi-
ming what the standard of morality is and a judge as well,
determining what will violate such standard. Morality has to
"secztzcbr morc}Zjty. " Here is how the court defined this concept:
come from outside the parties to this case. It must come from
the "prevailing norms of conduct."
Let us now go to its definitive argument.
Example 16..
"In stark contrast to Santos, the Court does not find
any circumstance in this case which would lead the Court
to conclude that the petitioner committed a disgraceful
or immoral conduct. It bears stressing that the petitioner
and her boyfriend, at the time they conceived a child,
had no legal impediment to marry. Indeed, even prior to
her dismissal, the petitioner married her boyfriend, the
father of her child. As the Court held in Radam, there is
no law which penalizes an unmarried mother by reason
of her sexual conduct or proscribes the consensual sexual
activity between two unmarried persons; that neither
does such situation contravene any fundamental state
policy enshrined in the Constitution.
Admittedly, the petitioner is employed in an educa-
tional institution where the teachings and doctrines of
the Catholic Church, including that on premarital sexual
relations, is strictly upheld and taught to the students.
Ill -OTHER PATTERNS OF LEGAL REASONING 31
That her indiscretion, which resulted in her pregnancy out
of wedlock, is anathema to the doctrines of the Catholic
Church.
However, viewed against the preuojz£7ig 7torms o/
co7tdztc£, the petitioner's conduct cannot be considered as
disgraceful or immoral; such conduct is not denounced
by public and secular morality. It may be an unusual
arrangement, but it certainly is not disgraceful or immoral
within the contemplation of the law. To stress, premarital
sexual relations between two consenting adults who have
no impediment to marry each other, and, consequently,
conceiving a child out of wedlock, goztged /ron a pL4rezy
public and secular view of morality, does Trot 8L"ourit to 8L
disgraceful or immoral conduct under Section 94(e) of the
1992 MRPS.''6
Here, the term "prevailing norm of conduct" rrLealns
"The morality referred to in the lc[w is public and
necessarily secular, not religious x x x. ``Rdig±ous teaLch-
ings as expressed in public debate may influence the
civil public order but public moral disputes may be
resolved only on grounds articulable in secular terms."
Otherwise, if government relies upon religious beliefs
in formulating public policies and morals, the resulting
policies and morals would require conformity to what
some might regard as religious programs or agenda. The
nonbelievers would therefore be compelled to conform to
a standard of conduct buttressed by a religious belief, i.e.,
to a ``compelled religion,'' anathema to religious freedom.
Likewise, if government based its actions upon religious
beliefs, it would tacitly approve or endorse that belief
and thereby also tacitly disapprove contrary religious
or nonreligious views that would not support the policy.
As a result, government will not provide full religious
freedom for all its citizens, or even make it appear that
those whose beliefs are disapproved are second class citi-
zens. Expansive religious freedom therefore requires that
government be neutral in matters of religion; govern-
9Leus v. St. Scholastica's College, G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015.
32 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING
mental reliance upon religious justification is inconsistent
With this policy of neutrality.''10
Thus, secular norm and not religious norm of conduct
must govern. It said that when a public law; such as the 1992
Manual of Regulations for Private School, provides for some
moral norm or standard, such standard must always bear a
secular and not religious conception. Religious teachings may
influence public debate, the Court argued, but in the end,
moral delineations are determinable only in secular terms.
This is to ensure that the constitutional rights of people to
religious freedom will not be violated.
Let us make syllogism out of this reasoning.
1. Secular morality does not regard premarital sex
between two adult, unmarried male and female as
disgraceful and immoral.
2. Cheryll, being adult and married, consented to have
premarital sex with her boyfriend.
3. Therefore, Cheryll does not commit any disgraceful
and immoral conduct.
This deductive reasoning is valid however revolting
its implication maybe to other people. The argument and
reasoning make sense formally even if it is distasteful to the
sensibilities and reasoning of those who see morality from
religious point of view. Agreeably, the idea of morality as a
product of social convention is dangerous. Social conventions
stand on shaky ground. They come and go as fads come and
go. Under this condition, morality is utterly dependent on
what societal norms are prevailing.
Nevertheless, we are simply dealing with argument
from definition in legal reasoning. Substantial treatment on
morality is beyond the scope of this book. The succeeding
discussion is about the other kinds of arguments.
t°Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003.
Ill -OTHER PATTERNS OF LEGAL REASONING 33
lf`and Then Reasoning
\ If and then reasoning is also known as "hypothetical
\
syuogism.'' It is a syllogism with conditional statement for one
or both of its premises. Below is an example of this kind of
reasoning taken from Patrick J. Hurley's book "A Concise
Ir.troduction To Logic".."
"If electricity flows through a conductor, then a mag-
netic field is produced.
If a magnetic field is produced, then a nearby compass
will be deflected.
Therefore, if electricity flows through a conductor,
then a nearby compass will be deflected."
We have several examples of this type of reasoning in the
case of Hstrada v. Escritor:12
Exjample 17:
"I/ the relationship is such that it can have God's
approval, then, a second principle to consider is that one
should do all one can to establish the honorableness of
ones marital union in the eyes of all."
"I/ divorce is possible, then such step should now be
taken so that, having obtained the divorce (on whatever
legal grounds may be available), the present union can
receive civil validation as a recognized marriage."
"Finally, i/ the marital relationship is not one out of
harmony with the principles of God's Word, and i/ one has
done all that can reasonably be done to have it recognized
by civil authorities and has been blocked in doing so, £he7t,
a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness can be signed."
If and then argument is easy to identify. It starts with
the word "if' and concludes with "then." We do not need to
belabor so much in this subject. Let us proceed to the next
pattern of argument.
11Hur|ey, p. 31.
12A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003.
34 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING
Argument from General Principles of Law
Principles such as "unjust enrichment," "justice
and equity," "force majeure," etc., are also used as major
premises in deductive reasoning or used as the concluding
principle on which inductive premises are based. But we are
going to use the principle ``unjust enrichment" because we
are simply seeking to learn how an argument can be made by
invoking a general principle of law. It must also be pointed out
that justice and equity underlie all other general principles
of law.
What is "unjust enrichment"? In the case of Philippine
Realty and Holdings Corp. v. Levy Construction and
Development Corp.,13 the Supreme Court defined the phrase
"unjust enrichment," £o zu££:
"Unjust enrichment exists when a person unjustly
retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person
retains money or property of another against the funda-
mental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.
Under Art. 22 of the Civil Code, there is unjust enrich-
ment when (1) a person is unjustly benefited, and (2) such
benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to
another."
Simply put, there is unjust enrichment when a person
obtains a benefit (money or property) at the expense of an-
other. As stated by the Supreme Court, this principle is
founded on the fundamental principle of justice, equity, and
good conscience. Again, principles like these are used as major
premises in deductive reasoning. Let us see how this is played
out in the case of Locsin 11 v. Mekeni Food Corporation.14
Locsin was hired as a regional sales manager of Mekeni
Food Corporation Orekeni). To enable Locsin to cover his
sales work, Mekeni furnished him a second hand car valued
at P280,000.00. This car was formerly furnished to a former
employee. P5,000.00 was deducted from Locsin's salary as
13G.R. No.165547, June 13, 2011.
14G.R. No. 192105, December 9, 2013.
III -OTHER PATTERNS OF LEGAL REASONING 35
\
h onthly payment for the car. Locsin resigned from Mekeni
ahd at the time of his resignation, a total of P112,500.00
w4s deducted from his salary. Locsin was now seeking reim-
buisement of P112,500.00 from Mekeni invoking the principle
of L1\njust enrichment.
Let us analyze Ilocsin's argument.
Example 18..
"...petitioner...(argues that the car)...was part of his
compensation package, and the vehicle was an important
component of his work which required constant and
uninterrupted mobility. Petitioner claims that the car
plan was in fact more beneficial to Mekeni than to him;
besides, he did not choose to avail of it, as it was simply
imposed on him. He concludes that it is only just that his
payments should be refunded and returned to him."
Locsin's argument is inductive, £o zuj£:
1. The car was part of his compensation;
2. Itis requiredofhis work;
3. He didnotchooseto availofit;
4. Itwasimposedonhim;
5. The car was more beneficial to Mekeni and if the
latter retains the P112,500.00 it would be unjustly
benefit at Locsin's loss.
6. Therefore, it would be unjust if his payments are not
refunded to him.
As inductive reasoning is probabilistic, the conclusion
that the car payments must be refunded is more probable.
Fortunately for Locsin, the Supreme Court agreed with him:
Example 19..
"Any benefit or privilege enjoyed by petitioner from
using the service vehicle was merely incidental and insig-
nificant, because for the most part the vehicle was under
Mekeni's control and supervision. Free and complete dis-
posal is given to the petitioner only after the vehicle's cost
is covered or paid in full. Until then, the vehicle remains
36 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING
at the back and call of Mekeni. Given the vast territory /
petitioner had to cover to be able to perform his work
effectively and generate business for his employer, the
service vehicle was an absolute necessity, or else Mekeni's
business would suffer adversely. Thus, it was clear that '
while petitioner was paying for half of the vehicle's value,
Mekeni was reaping the full benefits from the use thereof."
Observe carefully that the Supreme Court's reasoning
here is also inductive which can be constructed this way:
1. Any benefit enjoyed by Locsin of the the car was
merely incidental;
2. The car was under Mekeni's control and supervision;
3. Free and complete disposal of it will be given to
Locsin after payment in full of the price;
4. The car was an absolute necessity ofMekeni's busi-
ness without which the latter would suffer;
5. Therefore, retaining the car would be an unjust en-
richment for Mek6ni at the expense of Locsin.
These examples show that general principles of law
such as the principle of "unjust enrichment" can be made the
major premise or the concluding statement of an argument.
It must be pointed out heretofore that we are constructing
the syllogistic structure of either a deductive or inductive
argument.
In the next chapter, we will explore ways of building
effective reading skills that are vital to the development of
critical thinking and logical reasoning.
Exercises:
Identify the kind of arguments in each item below and
construct their syllogism.
1. If entry into the party-list system would depend
only on the ability of an organization to represent its
constituencies, then all representative organizations
would have found themselves into the party-list
III -OTHER PATTERNS OF LEGAL REASONING 37
race. But that is not the intention of the framers
of the law. The party-list system is not a tool to
advocate tolerance and acceptance of misunderstood
\\ :;::::S±:ra8tro°ouLpfsor°ft#:rrse°anL:Za:LFot:eorf, :Fpe±rpaat:::.:i::
i marginalized individuals whose interests are also
the nation only that their interests have not been
broughttotheattentionofthenationbecauseoftheir
under representation. Until the time comes when
Ladlad is able to justify that having mixed sexual
orientations and transgender identities is beneficial
to the nation, its application for accreditation under
the Party-list system will remain just that.15
2. The COMELEC posits that the majority of the phil-
ippine population considers homosexual conduct
as immoral and unacceptable, and this constitutes
sufficient reason to disqualify the petitioner. Un-
fortunately for the respondent, the Philippine elec-
torate has expressed no such belief. No law exists
to criminalize homosexual behavior or expressions
or parties about homosexual behavior. Indeed, even
if we were to assume that public opinion is as the
COMELEC describes it, the asserted state interest
here that is, moral disapproval of an unpopular
minority is not a legitimate state interest that is
sufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the
equal protection clause. The COMELEC's differ-
entiation, and its unsubstantiated claim that Ang
Ladlad cannot contribute to the formulation of
legislation that would benefit the nation, furthers no
legitimate state interest other than disapproval of
or dislike for a disfavored group.16
3. Petitioner contends that the term "television pro-
gram" should not include religious programs like its
15ANG IjADIAD LGBT PARTY v. Comelec, G.R. No.190582, April 8, 2010.
16Ibi,d.
38 BASIC TECHNIQUES IN LEGAL REASONING Ill -OTHER PATTERNS OF LEGAL REASONING 39
/
/
.I

program "Ang Iglesia ni Cristo.'' A contrary int¢/r. as well as unjust enrichment on the part of petitioner
pretation, it is urged, will contravene Sectio if the rental fees paid by respondent during the time
Article Ill of the Constitution which guarantees that it was denied access to and prevented from
"no law shall be made respecting an establishrient
using the leased premises be not returned to it.19
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The free exercise and enjoyment of religious` pro- Suggested Case Reading:
fession and worship, without discrimination or 1. Cayetano v. Monsod, G.R. No.100113, September 3,
preference, shall forever be allowed."17 1991;
The evidence shows that the respondent Board 2. Orceov. Comelec, G.R. No.190779, March 26, 2010;
x-rated petitioners TV series for "attacking" either
religi6ns, especially the Catholic Church. An exam- 3. Leus v. St. Scholastica's, G.R. No.187776, January
28, 2015;
ination of the evidence, especially Exhibits "A,"
"A-1," "8," "C," and "D'' will show that the so- 4. Phil. Realty and Holdings corp. v. Levy construction
called "attacks" are mere criticisms of some of the and Dev. Corp., G.R. No.165547, June 13, 2011;
deeply held dogmas and tenets of other religions. 5. Locsin v. Mekeni Food Corp., G.R. No. 192105,
The videotapes were not viewed by the respondent December 9, 2013.
court as they were not presented as evidence. Yet
they were considered by the respondent court as
indecent, contrary to law and good customs, hence,
can be prohibited from public viewing under Section
3(c) of PD 1986. This ruling clearly suppresses
petitioner's freedom of speech and interferes with its
right to free exercise of religion. It misappreciates
the essence of freedom to differ as delineated in the
benchmark case of Cantwell v. Connecticut...18
5. Inthe instant case, it is clearthat petitioner failed to
maintain respondent in the peaceful and adequate
enjoyment of the leased premises by unjustifiably
preventing the latter access thereto. Consequently,
in accordance with Article 1658 of the Civil Code,
respondent had no duty to make rent payments.
Despite that, respondent still continued to pay the
rental fees agreed upon in the original contract.
Thus, it would be the height of inequity and injustice

]7Iglesia Ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.119673, July 26,1996. L9MIAA v. Avia Filipinas International, Inc„ G.R. No. 180168, February
18|g|esia Ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals, Sz4Pro.
27, 2012.