Common Law Tradition Vs Civil Law Tradition - When the law is not clear as to its meaning and to its
ar as to its meaning and to its application
Common Law Tradition
- Based on decisions by court
- Law of England by its territories and colonies, including the US
at the time of its formation
- “Judge-made law”
Judge deciding the individual case is the center-piece of the
common law tradition
- The Judge, not the legislator or the scholar, creates the law
- The Judge exercises Value Judgement
Value Judgement - common law judge makes from completing
legal precepts or interprets/applies them & then structures the
premises that lead to conclusions in the case at hand
- Judges have their own preferences among a sea of legal standards,
any one in principle respectable, and then make selections
- Judges sometimes resort to extralegal standards, making a choice
from ethical, moral, social, political, or economic, concepts
offered by diverse searchers or philosophers
E.g. Where the court made a legal doctrine that is not qualified under
the law (People V. Genosa “Battered woman syndrome)
Characteristics of Civil Law Tradition
1. Seeks and generally produces uniformity of law through out the
jurisdiction
2. Produces decisions announcing a narrow rule covering a
detailed and a real fact situation
3. Principal develop gradually as the courts reconcile a series of
narrow rules emanating from prior decisions
4. Produces judge-made law
5. Lower courts operating in the tradition are bound by the
decisions of hierarchically superior courts
Civil Law Tradition
- Declared by the legislature
Art. 8 of the New Civil Code
- Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Consti
shall form part of the legal system of the PH
Art. 8, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Consti.
- Judge interprets the law
- No Judicial decision
- The courts cannot insert words and phrases in the law in order to
supply an intention for the legislature
- When the law is clear, APPLY THE LAW
- When the law is clear and the sole question is the application of
the facts to the law, the court will ADJUDICATE or DECLARE
RIGHTS
- When the law is not clear on its applicability to certain facts l, the
court will INTERPRET THR LAWS.
- When certain provisions of the law need to be related to other
provisions of law - apply principles of stat. con. or constitutional
construction
- When the law is not clear as to its meaning and to its application
- declare it void ; but do not legislate
> VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE
- Interested parties must lobby in congress
- When certain provision of law need to be related to other
provisions of law - apply principles of stat. con.
- declare it void but do not legislate
Common Law Principles also found in Civil Law
1. Stare Decisis - a doctrine/policy of ffg. rules/principles laid
down in prev. judicial decisions unless they contravene the
ordinary principles of justice
- a judicial precedent attaches a specific legal consequence to a
detailed set of facts in an adjudged case or judicial decision, which
is then considered as furnishing the rule for the determination of a
subsequent case involving identical or similar material facts and
arising in the same court or a lower court in the judicial hierarchy.
2. Ratio Decidends
Latin - Reason for decision
The reason or the Rationale for the decisions
-Art. 8, Sec. 14 of 1987 Constitution
3. Obiter Dictum
- Any portion of the judicial opinion that concerns an issue beyond
the precise facts
- A judge’s incidental expression of opinion, not essential to the
decision and not establishing precedent
- An incidental remark
Role of Logic
- The rules of logic are means to the end in the law
- They are implements
- Techniques to encourage, if not guarantee, acceptable supporting
reasons for the final conclusion in a case, a decision that
constitutes a legal rule
Legal Thinking
- Logical thought is a progression of thought based on the logical
relation between truths
- Logical thought is reflective thinking
- Consists of solving a problem by pondering a given set of facts in
order to perceive their connection
Legal Reasoning
- Means to give grounds for one’s statements to argue persuasively,
or to engage in discourse
Paths of Legal Reasoning
ISSUE: What specifically is being debated?
RULE: What legal rule governs this issue?
FACTS: What are the facts relevant to this rule?
EVIDENCE: What evidence prove or support the facts?
ANALYSIS: Apply the rule to the facts (deduction)
Get other cases w/ the same facts applied to the rule (Induction)
CONCLUSION: Having applied the rule to the proven facts, what
is the outcome?
ISSUE
- An issue is FACTUAL when the contending parties cannot agree
that a thing exists or has actually happened.
- An issue is LEGAL when the contending parties assume a thing
exists or has actually happened, but disagree on its legal
significance or effect on their rights or obligations
RULE
• State the rule
• Quote the particular provision of law and rule
• Define the law
• Break the law/rule into its ELEMENTS
• Cite SC decisions interpreting the rule/law
 • All companies w/ SEC approved Articles of Incorp. have juridical
personality
FACTS AND EVIDENCE
• Material Facts From general to particular
• Relevant Facts Categorical Syllogism
• Documentary Evidence • All residents of the PH who are min. wage earners are exempt
• Object Evidence from income tax.
• Testimonial Evidence • Sarah is a PH resident and min. wage earner
• Proven Facts • Sarah is exempt from income tax

ANALYSIS Categorical Syllogism applies legal principles to a particular case

- Apply the Law/Rule/Judicial Interpretation to the facts
(Deduction)
- Get other cases w/ the same facts applied on the rule (Induction)
CONCLUSION
- Show that the facts fall w/in definition of the law
- Show the evidence that prove facts falling under all the
ELEMENTS of the law/rule
- Demonstrate that all the elements of the law/rule are met and
make a conclusion of fact and conclusion of law
Legal Reasoning Particular Method or Arguing
- Means to give grounds
Major Premise: Law provision or legal principle
Minor Premise: Proven facts of the case (established facts by
evidence)
Conclusion: Judgement
Gen. to particular legal reasoning (categorical syllogism)
Major Premise (Legal Principle) - All contracts w/ clauses against
public policy are void
Minor Promise (Facts) - All donation b/w husband and wife is a
contract against public policy
Conclusion (Judgement) - Therefore the donation b/w husband and
wife is void

Types If there is a mistake in:

Deductive From general to From general to Major Premise - Wrong law

general (seldom particular Minor Premise - Wrong appreciation of facts
adopted) (categorical
syllogism) “Error of Law” “Error of Fact”

Inductive From particular to From particular to - Subject to review on question - Subject to review on question
general particular (Analogy) of law of fact
(generalization)
How do these play in legal reasoning? <- employs both deductive - May merit reversal of - Must have credible evidence
and inductive reasoning judgement w/o need of to support reversal of factual
evidence finding
1. Case Law/Jurisprudence - created by inductive generalization
2. The legal principles to be used in a particular case are
determined by inductive analogy Enthymemes
3. The relevant legal principles are applied to the facts of a - In formal argument, when one of the premises or the conclusion
particular case by deduction
is not expressed
3 Factors of Deductive Argument - Said to be stated incompletely
- Part of being “understood” or “only in the minds”
1. Special indicator words: - Premises or conclusion is obvious and is understood (or believed
Necessarily Certainly
to be obvious and understood)
Absolutely Definitely
- Most often, the omitted premise is the MAJOR PREMISE
2. Indicators of deductive
- Actual strength of inferential link Dissecting Deductive Syllogism
Conclusion obtained through deductive reasoning is certain
ISSUE (matter): defines the syllogism’s subject
RULE: Syllogism’s major premise
3. Argument form
ANALYSIS: Syllogism’s minor premise
- Based on math CONCLUSION: Syllogism’s conclusion
- Argument from definition
- Testing Enthymemes
Categorical syllogism
- Supply the missing parts of the argument and test the resulting
- Hypothetical syllogism
formal syllogism
- Disjunctive syllogism NOTE: Enthymemes will only constitute effective arguments if both
the assumed and stated propositions are correct.
Types of Deductive Reasoning - In all syllogisms, the effectiveness of the conclusion depends
upon the validity of the propositions of the accuracy of the
From general to general
premises
• All corp. have a juridical personality
• All companies w/ SEC approved Articles of Incorp. are corp.
Polysyllogisms

Polysyllogism - series of syllogisms in w/c the conditions of one is
a premise of the next
Prosyllogism - in the series of syllogisms whose conclusion
becomes a succeeding premise
Episyllogism - one premisebis the conclusion of a preceeding
syllogism
NOTE: If the series contains more than one syllogism, then every
single syllogism except the first and the last will be both a
prosyllogism and an episyllogism
CHOICE OF MAJOR PREMISE
Value Judgement - Choice of applicable law
Primary Source - Constitution, Law (Statute)
Supporting Source - Jurisprudence
Legal Analysis: 3 Step Procedure
- the acceptability of analogy will vary proportionately with the
number of circumstances that have been analyzed
- The acceptability will depend upon the number of positive
resemblances (similarities) and negative resemblances
(dissimilarities)
- The acceptability will be influenced by the relevance of the
purported analogies
- Conclusion is not considered TRUTH
- Proposition is more probably true than not true
- Inductive reasoning often uses the 2 process of enumeration and
analogy simultaneously. Thus, there is greater probability that
truth will lie in the conclusion.
INDUCTIVE REASONING example
• by Enumeration - benefit of experience
• by Analogy - benefit of high degree of similarity

Major Premise: Premise 1: case 1 is similar to case 3

1. Selecting or choosing the legal principle/precept
2. Interpreting that legal principle/precept
Minor Premise:
3. Establishing facts
4. Applying the legal principle/precept to the particular case at hand
Premise 2: case 2 is similar to case 3
Premise 3: case 1 and case 2 have similarities
Conclusion: establish principles that may be probably true that are
common in cases 1, 2, and 3 - GENERALIZATION
Principles in Case 1 and 2 apply to Case 3 - ANALOGY

Conclusion
If the value judgement expressed in the major premise is acceptable FALLACIES
and if the minor premise is valid then conclusion is acceptable
FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
INDUCTIVE REASONING
• Generalization • the premises are logically irrelevant to the conclusion
• Analogy ● they are psychologically or emotionally relevant to the conclusion
●therefore, the conclusion appears or seems to follow from the
How is applied in legal reasoning? premises although the premises in fact provide no genuine
evidence for the conclusion
1. Case Law or Jurisprudence is created by inductive
generalization Appeal to Force
2. The legal principle to be used in a particular case are determined
by inductive analogy - Physical or psychological intimidation
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE
- An argument relies on threat rather than reason
-Nature is sufficiently regular to permit the discovery of causal laws the hearer is told that something bad will happen to him if he does
having general application not accept the argument
-We may rely on past experiences to guide our conduct in the future
Appeal to Pity
1. INDUCTIVE GENERALIZATION
- pity is aroused in the hearer which influences her to accept a
- Induction by Enumeration conclusion unsupported by evidence
:particular facts of experience by general propositions -involves an attempt to avoid responsibility and may include
references to being a victim of circumstances
Premises: -appeal that relies on emotion instead of evidence
Instances of certain facts which accompanying legal consequences
which repeatedly accompany one another (legal rules) from which Appeal to People
it is concluded that the legal consequence will always accompany
the facts (legal principle) - Substitutes an exploitive and manipulative appeal to peoples’
emotional weaknesses (passions, prejudices, insecurities,
Argument based on experience etc.) for logically relevant evidence
E.g. People v Laurente -idea that if many or most people believe a something, it must be
People v Docdoc true
2. INDUCTIVE ANOGY • DIRECT APPROACH
- From particular to particular ●INDIRECT APPROACH
- Does not seek proof of an identity of one with another, but only a ●BANDWAGON FALLACY
comparison of resemblances ●APPEAL TO VANITY
- Used in a case by case basis • Snob Appeal

- Factual or procedural resemblance or similarities in the facts - Arguer tries to convince the audience to do or believe something
because everyone else (supposedly) does
Searching Analysis of Analogy:
Argument against the person

- someone gives the argument, rather than analyzing the argument,
the responder attacks the arguer
- abusive ad hominem
- circumstantial ad hominem
- tu quoque
- usually attacking unfairly the person instead the issue
Accident
- mechanically misapplies a general rule to a specific case
- may result from an inflexible or overly strict interpretation of the
general rule, a kind of rigorous literalism insensitive to the
limits of the rule and to the circumstances that are its
exception
The Straw Man Fallacy
- someone gives an argument, rather than analyzing the argument,
the responder fashions a less defensible version of the
argument to attack
- arguer distorts or misrepresents an opponent’s argument for the
purpose of more easily attacking it, proceeds to demolish the
distorted position, and then concludes that the opponent’s
actual argument has been destroyed
Missing the Point
-The premise supports a conclusion other than the one it is meant to
support
-occurs when the premises of an argument support a particular
conclusion, but the arguer draws a different conclusion that
is usually vaguely related to the correct conclusion
- sometimes called irrelevant conclusion, the fallacy of missing the
point exhibits a specific type of logical irrelevance
Red Herring
- committed when an arguer diverts the attention of the
reader/listener away from the issue at hand by raising some
other, seemingly related issue
- gets its name from the practice of using a herring, a particularly
smelly fish with a potent scent, to divert hunting dogs from
the scent of a fox.
- arguer attempts to sidetrack the reader/listener from the real issue
Fallacies of Weak Induction
• Appeal to Ignorance
When it is argued that a proposition is true on the ground that it has
not been proved false or vice-versa. The premises tell us that
nothing can be known with certainty one way or the other about a
certain subject while the conclusion states something definite.
• Appeal to Unqualified Authority
When the cited authority or witness lacks credibility. There are
several reasons why an authority or witness might lack credibility.
The person might lack the requisite expertise.
• Hasty Generalization
Committed when a conclusion is drawn about all the members of a
group from evidence that pertains to a selected sample. The fallacy
occurs when there is likelihood that the sample is not representative
of the group. Such likelihood may arise if the sample is either too
small or not randomly selected.
• False Cause
Committed whenever the link between premises and conclusion
depends on some imagined causal connection that does not in fact
exist. Any reasoning that relies on treating as the cause of a thing
what is not really its cause is a fallacy - non causa pro causa.
• Weak Analogy
Committed when the analogy is not strong enough to support the
conclusion that is drawn. It draws a conclusion about something on
the basis of an analogy with or resemblance to some other
thing. The assumption is that if two or more things are alike in some
respects, they are alike in some other respect.
• Slippery Slope
This is a variety of the false cause fallacy. It occurs when the
conclusion of an argument rests upon the claim that a certain event
will set off a chain reaction, leading in the end to some undesirable
consequence, yet there is no sufficient reason to think that the chain
reaction will actually take place.
Group 3
BEGGING THE QUESTION
-assumes the truth of what one seeks to prove, in the effort to prove
it. Phrasing the argument so that the premise and
conclusion say the same thing in two slightly different
ways.
-Another name for this is circular argument. The argument begs the
question at issue because it asks that the statement to be
proved be granted beforehand.
-It assumes as true the very point in question
To recognize the fallacy of begging the question, look for an
argument that assumes already the very issue under debate. Be
aware that a question-begging argument may appear to offer
legitimate, independent support, but on closer examination a
premise in fact either itself rests upon the conclusion or restates
the conclusion in different words.
BEGGING THE QUESTION
Examples
1.Philosophers are highly intelligent individuals because if they
were not highly intelligent they would not be
philosophers.
2.The Bible asserts that God exists. The Bible is the divine word of
God. Therefore, God exists.
3.It is plain to see that suicide is morally wrong because, as any
thinking person will admit, no one is ever justified in
taking his or her own life.
-when a single question that is really two or more questions is asked
and the single answer is then applied to both questions
-If respondents are not sophisticated enough to identify a complex
question when one is put to them, they may answer quite
innocently and be trapped by a conclusion that is supported
by no evidence at all.
COMPLEX QUESTION
-when a single question that is really two or more questions is asked
and the single answer is then applied to both questions
-If respondents are not sophisticated enough to identify a complex
question when one is put to them, they may answer quite
 innocently and be trapped by a conclusion that is supported
by no evidence at all.
Example
Have you stopped cheating on your girlfriend?
FALSE ANALOGY
-a fallacy committed when the analogy is not strong enough to
support the conclusion that is drawn.
-It draws a conclusion about something on the basis of an analogy
with or resemblance to some other thing.
-The assumption is that if two or more things are alike in some
respects, they are alike in some other respect.
STRUCTURE
The structure of the argument is as follows:
A and B are both f, g, and h.
A is also j.
Therefore, probably B is j.
Example
Harper’s new car is bright blue, has leather upholstery, and gets an
excellent mileage. Crowley’s new car is also bright blue and has
leather upholstery. Therefore, it probably gets excellent mileage
too.
To recognize the fallacy of false analogy, look for an argument that
draws a conclusion about one thing, event, or practice on the
basis of its analogy or resemblance to other. The fallacy occurs
when the analogy or resemblance is not sufficient to warrant the
conclusion, as when, for example, the resemblance is not
relevant to the possession of the inferred feature or there are
relevant dissimilarities.
- a fallacy committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would
tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument,
causing it to be unsound or uncogent.
SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE
-a fallacy committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would
tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument,
causing it to be unsound or uncogent.
Example
The second amendment to the constitution states that the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But a law
controlling handguns would infringe on the right to keep and
bear arms. Therefore, a law controlling hand guns would be
unconstitutional.
Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely
related to begging the question. As such, its occurrence does not
affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather
the alleged truth of the premises. The fallacy consists in passing off
what are at best half-truths as if they were the whole truth, thus
making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. It
is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in
the situation to which the argument pertains.
SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE
EQUIVOCATION
a fallacy committed when the conclusion of the argument depends
on the fact that one or more words are used, either explicitly or
implicitly, in two different senses in the argument.
Example:
1.A law can be repealed by legislative authority. The law of gravity
is a law. Therefore, the law of gravity can be repealed by
the legislative authority.
2.To identify the fallacy of equivocation, look for reasoning that
involves a shift between two or more senses of a key word
or phrase in the argument.
AMPHIBOLY
This fallacy occurs when the arguer misinterprets a statement that is
ambiguous owing to some structural defect and proceeds to draw a
conclusion based on this faulty interpretation.
Examples:
1.John told Bob that he had made a mistake. It follows that John has
at least the courage to admit his own mistakes.
2.Professor Johnson said that he will give a lecture about heart
failure in the biology lecture hall. It must be the case that
a number of heart failures have occurred there recently.
Amphiboly differs from equivocation in two important ways:
1)the former involves a structural defect in a statement while the
latter is always traced to an ambiguity in the meaning of
one or more words;
2)the former involves a mistake made by the arguer in interpreting
an ambiguous statement made by someone else, whereas
in the latter the ambiguity is typically the arguer’s own
creation.
COMPOSITION
a fallacy committed when the conclusion of an argument depends on
the enormous transference of a characteristic from the parts of
something onto the whole. In other words, the fallacy occurs
when it is argued that because the parts have a certain
characteristic, it follows that the whole has that characteristic,
too, and the situation is such that the characteristic in question
cannot be legitimately transferred from the parts to the whole.
STRUCTURE
The structure of this fallacy is:
each member of W is f.
Therefore, W is f.
The assumption of the argument is that what is true of the parts is
true of the whole. This is often false especially in those cases in
which the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Examples
1.A feather is light. Therefore, a plastic containing a billions
feathers is light.
2.Each member of the orchestra is excellent, so the orchestra is
excellent.
3.Each player on this basketball team is an excellent
athlete. Therefore, the team as a whole is excellent.

DIVISION
a fallacy that is the exact reverse of composition. As composition
goes from parts to whole, division goes from whole to
parts. The fallacy is committed when the conclusion of an
argument depends on the erroneous transference of a
characteristic from a whole onto its parts.

Its structure is:

W is f.
Therefore, each member of W is f.

Examples:
1.Salt is a nonpoisonous compound. Therefore, its component
elements, sodium and chlorine, are non poisonous.
2.The union voted to strike. Therefore, every member of the union
voted to strike.
3.Humans are the only animals capable of philosophical
thinking. Thus, every person is capable of
philosophical thinking.

To recognize the fallacy of division, look for an argument that

moves from a claim about a whole or a group to a conclusion about
one or all of the members of the whole. Then consider whether it is
justifiable to attribute what is true of the whole to its parts.