You are on page 1of 3

As students of law, our supposed greatest weapon is our great command of the English language.

Carpenters have their hammer, doctors have their thermometers, painters have their brushes, while we have our communication skills. But I guess some would agree with me that we students of law are not perfect in English, in the same way that not all surgeries conducted by physicians are successful. Sometimes, students of law have wrong grammar. Heck, even the word wrong grammar is, well, WRONG because grammar itself is correct use of grammar. Let's start with the basics first.. 1) the phrase with regards - this is a very common mistake with students of law. the correct way of saying it is with regard, i.e., without 's' in regard. it's either 'with regard' or you may use as regards (this time with an 's') or you may just prefer to use 'with respect'. all of them have the same meaning but just be careful with the phrase with regard ok . . If the 'grammar is wrong', the correct way of saying it is improper

2) the use of the words fill in / fill out / fill up - what is the common mistake here? ANSWER: using the word 'fill up' in "Pls fill up the forms." Some has accepted this though. But while you may "fill UP the car with gas", you do NOT fill up the forms. You "fill OUT the forms". You "fill IN the blanks" ayt 3) the phrase at this point in time or at this point and time - the proper way of using this phrase is either "at this point" or "at this time". Do NOT combine them. Now, let's move on to Legalese. Legalese is defined as the specialized language of the legal profession. The following are some common mistakes made by students of law with regard to Legalese. 1) In criminal cases, we accuse or we charge someone. What is the common mistake here? ANSWER: the words "accused with" and "charge of". These are common mistakes. The correct way of saying it: "Juan is accused OF murder." and "Juan is charged WITH murder." I learned this from my friend Atty. Anel Diaz (the 2003 bar topnotcher). (the discussion may be boring you now . But this is my help especially to the incoming freshmen. But this may be a review to current students and barristers as well) May i continue.. 2) of course, when you charge someone, you file a case. Now, what is the common mistake in filing? ANSWER: the complainant "files it to/in the RTC". The correct way of saying it: The complainant files it WITH the RTC. 3) now, the case is already in court. You need evidence to prove your claim. Is there a common mistake here? Yes there is. But what? ANSWER: the word 'evidences' The correct way of saying it if there are many evidence: pieces of evidence 4) the court now will make a ruling. I hate to say this but there are still common mistakes or

Peitioner's counsel moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case. What? ANSWER: when it comes to petitions and motions which of them is granted. Do not take them for granted. Her counsel was meticulous enough to notice the word 'AND' in the complaint. the case should have been filed with the MTC. the motion is GRANTED d. Had respondent's allegation been 'pay OR vacate'. There are really no mistakes and confusion between these 2. c. b. the case would have been one for Specific Performance. deny the motion b.confusion at this point. hence. See what I mean The 2nd part of the topic under discussion is as regards Pronunciations.etc. However. the question asks for your opinion as the judge in the case.. RTC of Baguio (Apr. a. respondent filed a complaint against petitioner captioned as Specific Performance with the RTC. give the petition due course 6) The next items are the conjuctive word 'AND' & the disjunctive word 'OR'. not RTC. my advice is to pay close attention to them. not spelled) The following are words commonly pronounced incorrectly: 1) Demurrer (in Rule 33) . This time.others say it as 'demyurer'. dismiss the petition d. dismissed. 2006). In that case. The allegation in respondent's complaint was for petitioner to 'pay AND vacate' the premises. If the motion is with merit. Just look at the case of Barrazona v. the question ends with "Decide the case" or "Rule on the petition/motion" Answer: If I were the judge. a. Petitioner won in that case. the petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE (a petition is NOT granted) 5) most of the time. These simple little words may spell the difference." The correct way of saying it: "If I WERE the judge." To summarize nos. for example. You may either fail or succeed in the case because of them. If the petition is meritorious. I will write them as they are pronounced.. You do not dismissa motion.. I would. 4 and 5. You do not move to demyur evidence . You do not deny a petition. You guessed it...after demand to pay.. grant the motion c. This may prove useful in classroom recitations especially where the professor is particular about pronouncing the words.. there is a common mistake here . Why? Because she had a brilliant counsel. You DENY a motion. What is it? ANSWER: if you begin your answer with "If I WAS the judge. You DISMISS a petition.' is an ejectment case (look at Rule 70 Sec.. (Note: This part deals with pronouncing the words. ."). 2 it says ". The counsel knew that 'pay AND vacate. So.AND to vacate. 7. This may also be helpful in court hearings. RTC would have jurisdiction.

I had no idea how to say this word. WRONG ehehe fashee.. I hope I was able to provide additional information on how to properly use Legalese. 6) Cestui que trust . others pronounce it as it is spelled. what i like to point out is that it is also correct to pronounce this as you pronounce the word 'president'. 'in pais' like you say mais (tagalog for corn).when I first started in law school. there's really no confusion here. i. So do not laugh at someone when he pronounces the word 'precedent' as if he was referring to GMA . I've heard others say this as 'prima fasha'. how would you pronounce it Say it as 'seti ke trust'.we usually encounter this with the terms 'judicial precedent' and 'condition precedent'.". If you were asked to recite a case with that word. i.The correct way of saying this is 'demarer' 2) Subpoena . The correct way of pronouncing this is 'in pie' as in American PIE. we usually encounter this Latin term with the sentence "there was no repudiation of the cestui que trust. Please feel free to share here any legal term which you think are improperly used / pronounced usually. Sorry for the longhand.e. The correct way of saying this is 'prima 5) In Pais ..e.this we see and hear with the term estoppel in pais. . That is also correct.in Civil Law cases. And to correct the words I've written here if I also committed a mistake in providing the right answer. 4) Prima facie .. .others usually say it as 'subpina'. But the correct way of saying this is 'supina'. Hope you enjoy the discussion and most importantly. ? 'cestwe kwe trust' ? No. don't say it like that . silent 'b' 3) precedent .