CHAPTER 1: Introduction
Logic and Law
Logic
➔ The study of the principles and methods
of good reasoning.
➔ It is a science of reasoning which aims to
determine and lay down the criteria of
good (correct) reasoning and bad
(incorrect) reasoning.
Legal Reasoning
Legal Reasoning
➔ Is what we use when we apply laws,
rules and regulations to particular facts
and cases;
➔ It is what we use when we interpret
constitutions and statutes, when we
balance fundamental principles and
policies and when we evaluate
evidences, and make judgments to
render legal decisions.
Propositions
➔ Is the building blocks of our reasoning.
➔ It asserts that something is the case or it
asserts that something is not.
Inference
➔ Process by which one proposition is
arrived at and affirmed on the basis of
some other proposition or propositions.
Argument
➔ Is a claim put forward and defended with
reasons.
➔ Is a group of statements in which one
statement is claimed to be true on the
basis of another statement/s.
Joanne Lorraine J. Verdan
Atty. Michael Vernon Guerrero
➔ Elements
1. Conclusion of an Argument - The
statement that is being claimed to be
true.
a. Conclusion indicators -
Therefore, so, thus, hence.. Etc.
2. Premises of the Argument - The
statement that serves as the basis or
support of the conclusion.
a. Premise indicators - Because,
since, for, as, inasmuch as, etc
➔ Structure and Content of Arguments
1. Issues and problems being raised
2. Chief direct claim of the argument
3. Bases and premises advanced to
support the claim and;
4. Crucial assumptions implicit in one’s
reasoning.
Explanation
➔ Is an attempt to show why something is
the case.
➔ Not meant to prove or justify the truth of
a particular claim.
Statements of belief or opinion
➔ Statements about what a speaker or
writer happens to believe.
Conditional Statements
➔ Contains an if-then relationship
➔ Two components:
1. Antecedent - the if-clause
2. Consequent - the then-clause
Components of Legal Reasoning
1. Issue of the Argument: What is being
argued?
➔ Is any matter of controversy or
uncertainty;
Legal Technique and Logic
1
 ➔ A point in dispute, in doubt, in
question, or simply up for discussion
or consideration.
2. Rule: What legal rules govern the issue?
➔ A statute or an ordinance
➔ Parts of a rule (Richard Neumann)
◆ A set of elements, collectively
called a test;
◆ A result that occurs when all the
elements are present; and
◆ A causal term that determines
whether the result is mandatory,
prohibitory, discretionary or
declaratory.
3. Fact: What are the facts that are relevant
to the rule cited?
➔ These are the material facts that fit
the elements of the rule.
4. Analysis: How applicable are the facts
to the said rule?
➔ This is the part where our
argumentation and illustration come
out.
➔ This part is supposed to show the
link between what we are claiming in
our argument.
➔ The concern here is whether the
material facts truly fit the law.
5. Conclusion: What is the implication of
applying the rule to the given facts?
➔ Is the ultimate end of a legal
argument.
➔ It is what the facts, the rules and the
analysis of the case amount to.
Evaluating Legal Reasoning
Two general criteria:
1. Truth
Joanne Lorraine J. Verdan
Atty. Michael Vernon Guerrero
2. Logic
Two main processes:
1. Presentation of facts - which pertains to
the question of truth
➔ Deals with the question: Are the
premises provided in the argument
true or acceptable?
➔ It is necessary for the conclusion of a
legal argument to be grounded on
factual basis. For if the premises that
are meant to establish the truth of the
legal claim (conclusion) is
questionable, the conclusion itself is
questionable.
2. Inference - deriving a legal claim or
judgment from the given laws and facts
which pertains to the question of logic.
CHAPTER 2: Fundamental Concepts in
Legal Reasoning
Burden of Proof
➔ Is the duty of any party to present
evidence to establish his claim or
defense by the amount of evidence
required by law, which is preponderance
of evidence in civil case.
➔ In civil cases: the plaintiff has the
burden of proving the material
allegations of the complaint which are
denied by the answer; and the defendant
has the burden of proving the material
allegations in his answer, which sets up
new matter as a defense.
➔ In administrative proceedings: rests on
the complainant.
➔ In medical negligence cases: the
complainant has the burden of
Legal Technique and Logic
2
 establishing breach of duty on the part of
the doctors or surgeons. It must be
proven that such breach of duty has a
causal connection to the resulting death
of the patient.
Equipoise Doctrine
➔ When the evidence of the parties are
evenly balanced or there is doubt on
which side the evidence preponderates,
the decision should be against the party
with the burden of proof.
Evidence
➔ Is the means sanctioned by the Rules of
Court, of ascertaining in a judicial
proceeding the truth respecting a matter
of fact.
Best evidence rule (Rule 130, Sec. 3, The
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure )
➔ applies only when the content of such
document is the subject of the inquiry.
Testimony
➔ Generally confined to personal
knowledge;
➔ Excludes hearsay
Hearsay rule
➔ Testimony as to what one merely learned
from others either because he was told,
or he read or heard the same. Such
testimony may not be received as proof
of the truth of what he has learned.
Expert Testimony
➔ Refers to statements made by individuals
who are considered as experts in a
particular field.
Examination
Order in which an individual witness may be
examined as follows:
Joanne Lorraine J. Verdan
Atty. Michael Vernon Guerrero
a) Direct examination by the proponent -
refers to the examination-in-chief of a
witness by the party presenting him on
the facts relevant to the issue;
b) Cross-examination by the opponent -
upon the termination of the direct
examination, the witness may be cross-
examined by the adverse party as to
many matters stated in the direct
examination, or connected therewith,
with sufficient fullness and freedom to
test his accuracy and truthfulness and
freedom from interest or bias, or the
reverse, and to elicit all important facts
bearing upon the issue.
c) Re-direct examination by the proponent
- after the cross-examination of the
witness has been concluded, he may be
re-examined by the party calling him, to
explain or supplement his answers given
during the cross-examination. On re-
direct examination, questions on matters
not dealt during the cross-examination
mat be allowed by the court in his
discretion; and
d) Re-cross-examination by the opponent -
upon the conclusion of the re-direct
examination, the adverse party may re-
cross examine the witness on matters
stated in his re-direct examination, and
also on such other matters as may be
allowed by the court in its discretion.
Dependence on Precedents
Stare decisis et non quieta movere/
Doctrine of adherence to precedents
➔ It is a general rule that, when a point has
been settled by a decision, it becomes a
Legal Technique and Logic
3
 precedent which should be followed in
subsequent cases before the same court.
➔ Judicial decisions applying or
interpreting the laws or the Constitution
shall form part of the legal system of the
Philippines.
➔ When a court has once laid down a
principle, and apply it to all future cases,
where facts are substantially the same,
regardless of whether the parties and
properties are the same. Follow past
precedents and do not disturb what has
been settled. Matters already decided on
the merits cannot be subject of litigation
again.
➔ Based on the principle that once a
question of law has been examined and
decided, it should be deemed settled and
closed to further argument.
Legis interpretado legis vim obinet
➔ The interpretation placed upon the
written law by a competent court has the
force of law.
Lex prospicit, non respicit
➔ The new doctrine may have to be
applied prospectively in favor of parties
who have relied on the old doctrine and
have acted in good faith in accordance
therewith.
CHAPTER 3: Deductive reasoning in law
Deductive reasoning
➔ there is a determination whether the
correct rules of law were applied to the
given facts or whether the rules of
Joanne Lorraine J. Verdan
Atty. Michael Vernon Guerrero
evidence were properly applied in
establishing the facts.
Inductive reasoning
➔ The premises are intended to provide
good but not conclusive evidence of the
truth of the conclusion.
Syllogisms
➔ It is a three-line argument that is an
argument which consist of exactly two
premises and a conclusion.
➔ Types of syllogisms
1. Categorical syllogisms – it is
composed of categorical statements
alone.
➔ It is a statement that assert
something or state a fact
without conditions.
2. Hypothetical syllogism – it includes
categorical and hypothetical
statements.
➔ are compound statements
which contain or propose a
tentative explanation.
Categorical syllogisms
Properties of a Categorical Statement
1. Quality: the quality of the statements
may be affirmative or negative.
a. Affirmative – absence of qualifiers
in the statement.
b. Negative – a statement that has the
terms “no”, “not”, “none”, and
“never”.
2. Quantity: the quantity of the statement
is either universal or particular.
a. Universal – when what is being
affirmed or denied of the subject
term is its whole extension.
Legal Technique and Logic
4
 b. Particular – when what is being
affirmed or denied of the subject is
just a part of its extension.
Quantity of the Predicate
➔ Two rules that must be observed:
1. The predicate of an affirmative
statement is generally particular.
2. The predicate of a negative statement
is always universal.
Parts of Categorical syllogism
➔ Three kinds of terms in a categorical
syllogisms:
1. Minor term (S) – the subject of the
conclusion which is also called the
subject term.
2. Major term (P) – the predicate of
the conclusion which is also called
the predicate term.
3. Middle term (M) – the term found
in both premises and serves to
mediate between the minor and the
major terms.
➔ Three kinds of statements in a
categorical syllogisms:
1. Minor premise – the premise which
contains the minor term.
2. Major premise – the premise which
contains the minor term.
3. Conclusion – the statement the
premise support.
Rules for the validity of Categorical
Syllogisms
1. Rule 1: Syllogism must not contain two
negative premises.
Joanne Lorraine J. Verdan
Atty. Michael Vernon Guerrero
2. Rule 2: There must be three pairs of
univocal terms.
3. Rule 3: The middle term must be
universal at least once.
4. Rule 4: If the term in the conclusion is
universal, the same term in the premise
must also be universal.
Hypothetical syllogisms
➔ Three kinds of hypothetical syllogisms
1. Conditional syllogism
2. Disjunctive syllogism
3. Conjunctive syllogism
Conditional syllogism
➔ It is a syllogism in which the major
premise is a conditional statement.
Conditional statement
➔ is a compound statement which asserts
that one member is true on condition that
the other member is true.
Rules for Conditional Syllogisms
1. Modus Ponens – a valid form where the
minor premise affirms the antecedent,
the conclusion must affirm the
consequent.
2. Modus Tollens – a valid form where the
minor premise denies the consequent,
the conclusion must deny the antecedent.
3. Fallacy of denying the antecedent – an
invalid form where a conditional
syllogism is invalid if the minor premise
denies the antecedent.
4. Fallacy of affirming the consequent –
an invalid form where the minor premise
affirms the consequent.
Enthymemes
➔ It is an argument in which one premise is
not explicitly stated.
Legal Technique and Logic
5
Polysyllogisms
➔ Is a series of syllogisms in which the
conclusion of one syllogism supplies a
premise of the next syllogisms.
CHAPTER 4: Inductive Reasoning in law
Inductive generalization
➔ It is an argument that relies on the
characteristics of a sample population to
make a claim about a population as a
whole.
➔ It is a general claim that makes a
statement about all, most, or some
members of a class, group, or set.
➔ Methods of evaluating Inductive
Generalization
1. Is the sample large enough?
➔ It is large enough when it is clear
that we have not rushed to judgment,
that we have not formed a hasty
generalization.
2. Is the sample representative?
➔ A sample is representative if there is
diversity in our sample that is the
various subgroups of the whole
population are represented in
selected respondents.
Analogical Arguments
Analogy
➔ is a comparison of things based on
similarities those things share.
Analogical Arguments
➔ It depends upon an analogy or similarity
between two or more things. It is very
useful in law particularly in deciding
what rule of law to apply in a particular
case and in settling disputed factual
Joanne Lorraine J. Verdan
Atty. Michael Vernon Guerrero
questions.
Evaluating Analogical Arguments
Three-step process in evaluating
Analogical Arguments
1. Establish similarities between two cases
2. Announce the rule of law embedded on
the first case
3. Apply the rule of law to the second case
Chapter 5 – Fallacies in Legal Reasoning
Fallacy
➔ it is not a false belief but a mistake or
error in thinking and reasoning.
Formal and Informal Fallacies
Formal fallacies
➔ Fallacies that may be identified through
mere inspection of the form and
structure of an argument.
Informal fallacies
➔ Fallacies that can be detected only
through analysis of the content of the
argument.
Categories of Informal Fallacies
1. Fallacies of Ambiguity - committed
because of a misuse of language.
➔ Contain ambiguous or vague language
which is deliberately used to mislead
people.
2. Fallacies of Irrelevant Evidence - have
a problem with the connection of the
premise and conclusion.
➔ These are misleading fallacies because
the premises are psychologically
relevant, so the conclusion may seem to
Legal Technique and Logic
6
 follow the premises although it does not
follow logically.
3. Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence -
Occur not because the premises are not
logically relevant to the conclusion but
because the premises fail to provide
evidence strong enough to support the
conclusion.
Fallacies of Ambiguity
1. Equivocation - A fallacy which consists
in leading an opponent to an
unwarranted conclusion by using a term
in its different senses and making it
appear to have only one meaning.
2. Amphiboly - A fallacy which consists in
presenting a claim or argument whose
meaning can be interpreted in two or
more ways due to its grammatical
construction.
3. Improper Accent - A fallacy which
consists in misleading people by placing
improper emphasis on a word, phrase or
particular aspect of an issue.
4. Vicious Abstraction - A fallacy which
consists in misleading the people by
using vague or abstract terms. This
fallacy occurs when vague words are
misused.
5. Composition - A fallacy which consists
in wrongly inferring that what holds true
of the individuals automatically holds
true of the group made up of those
individuals.
6. Division - A fallacy which consists in
wrongly assuming that what is true in
general is true in particular. This is
reverse fallacy of composition.
Joanne Lorraine J. Verdan
Atty. Michael Vernon Guerrero
Fallacies of Irrelevance
1. Argumentum ad Hominem (Personal
Attack) - A fallacy that ignores the
issue by focusing on certain personal
characteristics of an opponent.
➔ Two kinds:
A. Abusive - A fallacy which attacks
the argument based on the arguer’s
reputation, personality or some
personal shortcoming.
B. Circumstantial (Tu quoque) - A
fallacy which consists in defending
one’s position by accusing his or her
critic or other people doing the same
thing.
➔ Occurs when the argument
moves from in rem to an
argument alleging wrongness or
improper conduct on the party
who has alleged wrongdoing on
our part.
2. Argumentum ad Misericordiam
(Appeal to Pity) - A fallacy that
convinces the people by evoking
feelings of compassion and sympathy
when such feelings, however
understandable, are not logically
relevant to the arguer’s conclusion.
3. Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to
Force) - A fallacy that consists in
persuading others to accept a position by
using threat or pressure instead of
presenting evidence for one’s view.
4. Petitio Principii (Begging the
Question) - A fallacy designed to
persuade people by arguments that begs
the question.
Legal Technique and Logic
7
➔ Four types:
A. Arguing in Circle - A fallacy that
states or assumes as a premise the
very thing that should be proven in
the conclusion.
B. Question-Begging Language - This
fallacy consists in discussing an
issue by means of language that
assumes a position of the very
question at issue, in such a way as to
direct the listener to that same
conclusion.
C. Complex Question (Loaded
Questions) - this fallacy consists in
asking a question in which sense
presuppositions are buried in that
question.
D. Leading Question - this fallacy
consists in directing the respondent
to give a particular answer to a
question at issue by the manner in
which the question is asked.
Fallacies of Insufficient Evidence
1. Argumentum ad Antiquum (Appeal to
the Ages) - This fallacy attempts to
persuade others of a certain belief by
appealing to their feeling of reverence or
respect for some tradition, instead of
giving rational basis for such belief.
2. Argumentum ad Verecundiam
(Appeal to Inappropriate Authority) -
This fallacy consists in persuading
others by appealing to people who
command respect or authority but do not
have legitimate authority in the matter at
hand.
Joanne Lorraine J. Verdan
Atty. Michael Vernon Guerrero
3. Accident - This fallacy consist in
applying a general rule to a particular
case when circumstances suggest that an
exception to the rule should apply.
4. Hasty Generalization (Converse
Accident) - This fallacy consists in
drawing a general or universal
conclusion from insufficient particular
case.
5. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
(Arguing from Ignorance) - This
fallacy consists in assuming that a
particular claim is true because its
opposite cannot be proven.
6. False Dilemma - This fallacy arises
when the premise of an argument
presents us with a choice between two
alternatives and assumes that they are
exhaustive when in fact they are not.
➔ Exhaustive alternatives - Cover all
the possibilities.
CHAPTER 6: Rules of Legal Reasoning
Rules of Collision
➔ In case of incompatible laws dealing
with the same subject matter but with
conflicting provisions, it is the task of
judiciary to:
a. first attempt to reconcile or
harmonize them to ensure that justice
and equity is upheld.
b. uphold one over the other if such
reconciliation does not work.
Interpretare et concordare legis legibus
est optimus interpretandi
➔ To interpret and to harmonize laws with
laws is the best method of interpretation.
Legal Technique and Logic
8
Provisions vis-à-vis Provisions
➔ In case of conflicting clauses and
provisions arising in a statute, it must be
construed as a whole, not separately or
as a series of disconnected articles or
statutes.
Ut magis valeat quam pereat
➔ Construction is to be sought which gives
effect to the whole of the statute – its
every word.
Two Essential Principles in Statutory
Construction:
1. Statute is to be read as a whole.
2. All efforts must be made in order to
harmonize seemingly conflicting
provisions.
Doctrine of Associated Words (Noscitur a
Sociis)
➔ provides that where a particular word or
phrase in a statement is ambiguous in
itself or is equally susceptible to various
meanings, its true meaning may be made
clear and specific by considering the
company in which it is found or with
which it is associated.
Constitution
➔ is the fundamental law of the land and
the power to enact laws is a grant from
the Constitution to the Congress.
Interpretare et concordare legibus est
optimus interpretandi
➔ The best method of interpretation is that
which makes laws consistent with other
laws.
Leges posteriores priores contrarias
abrogant
➔ a later law repeals an earlier one because
it is the later legislative will. It is to be
Joanne Lorraine J. Verdan
Atty. Michael Vernon Guerrero
presumed that the lawmakers knew the
older law and intended to change it.
Lex posteriori derogat priori
➔ More recent law prevails over the old
law.
General Law vis-a-vis Special Laws
Generalia Specialibus non derogant
➔ Statutes treating a subject in general
terms and another treating a part of the
same subject in particularly detailed or
specialized manner.
Generalis Clausula non porrigitur ad ae
quae antea specialiter sunt comprehensa
➔ If both statutes are irreconcilable, the
general provisions must give way to the
special or particular provisions as an
exception to the general provisions.
➔ Special provisions or law prevails over a
general one.
Law vis a vis Ordinances
Ordinance
➔ a local legislative measure passed by the
local legislative body of local
government unit.
Ordinance to be valid must conform to
the following substantive requirements:
1. Must not contravene the Constitution or
any Statute;
2. Must not be unfair or Oppressive;
3. Must not be partial or discriminatory;
4. Must not prohibit but may regulate
Trade;
5. Must be general and consistent with
public policy;
6. Must not be unreasonable.
Legal Technique and Logic
9
Fundamental Principles: Limits the person to Allows the person
➔ Municipal Ordinances are inferior in what the law itself to utilize other
Status and Subordinate to the laws of the provides through reference materials
State examination of its or tools in order to
➔ In case of Conflict between an language, words, ascertain the true
administrative order and the provisions phrases and style meaning of law
of the Constitutions, the latter prevails.
➔ In case of conflict between a statute and ➔ Rules applicable:
an administrative order, the former must a. Verba legis or the word of law - “If the
prevail. language of the law is clear, there is no
➔ In case of discrepancy between the basic need for interpretation nor construction”
law and a rule, the basic law prevails b. Plain meaning rule - “Where the words
because said rule cannot go beyond the and phrases of a statute are not obscure
terms and provisions of the basic law. or ambiguous, its meaning and the
intention of the legislature must be
determined from the language employed
Rules of Interpretation and Construction
and where there is no ambiguity in the
Interpretation
➔ Refers to how a law or provision thereof words, there is no room for
is to be properly applied. construction”
c. Semper in dubiis benigniora
praeferenda - “For words are presumed
Interpretation vs Construction
to have been employed by the lawmaker
Interpretation Construction in their ordinary and common use and
acceptation”
Refers to drawing The process of
of the true nature, using tools, aid, If law admits 2 or more interpretation:
meaning and intent references extant 1. First interpret the law
of the law through from the law in 2. If not enough, attempt to construe the
examination of order to ascertain its meaning of law
provisions nature, meaning and
intent Rules of Judgment
Judicial power
One does not go One has to go ➔ by its nature, is the power to hear and
outside of the outside of the decide causes pending between parties
context of the language of the who have the right to sue and be sued in
statute statute and resort to the courts of law and equity.
extrinsic aids ➔ vested with the power to annul the acts
of either the legislative or of both when
not conformable to the fundamental law.

Joanne Lorraine J. Verdan Legal Technique and Logic

Atty. Michael Vernon Guerrero
10
➔ the only entity empowered by the
Constitution to interpret and construe
laws is the judicial branch of
government
Requisites for the exercise of the Court’s
power of judicial review:
1. Existence of actual and appropriate case
and controversy:
2. Personal and substantial interest of the
party raising the constitutional question;
3. Plea for the exercise of judicial review at
the earliest moment, and;
4. Constitutional question raised is the lis
mota of the case.
Justiciable controversy
➔ Involves a definite and concrete dispute
touching on the legal relations of the
parties having adverse legal interests;
Cardinal requirements of due process in
administrative proceedings:
1. Right to hearing including right to
present case and evidence in support
thereof;
2. Tribunal must consider the evidence
presented;
3. Decision must have some basis to
support itself;
4. Evidence must be substantial;
5. Decision must be based on evidence
presented at the hearing or in the record
disclosed to the parties affected;
6. Tribunal or any body of its judges must
act on its own independent consideration
of the law and the facts of the
controversy, and not simply accept the
views of the subordinate, and;
7. The board or body should, in all
controversial questions, render its
Joanne Lorraine J. Verdan
Atty. Michael Vernon Guerrero
decision in such a manner as would
allow the parties to know the various
issues involved and the reason for the
decision rendered.
Rules set in the judiciary with respect to
rendering judgement:
1. There is a need of confining familiar
language of a statute to its usual
signification.
2. Only when the law is ambiguous or of
doubtful meaning may the court interpret
or construe its true intent.
➔ Ambiguity
➔ is a condition of admitting two or
more meanings, of being
understood in more than one
way, or of referring to two or
more things at the same time, in
which the Court is to interpret the
law according to its true intent;
3. The intent of the legislature to be
ascertained and enforced is the intent
expressed in the words of the statue.
Rules of Procedure
➔ Refers to the process of how a litigant
would protect his right through the
intervention of the court or any
administrative body.
Legal Technique and Logic
11