CHAPTER 6

ANALYTICAL REASONING

The application of law to facts involves two methods:

deduction and analogy

DEDUCTION

in the deductive form is associated with reasoning

Reasoning
executive orders. Usually, the
from enacted law-statutes, regulations,
case. The starting point of the
enactment of a rule precedes any
do not have any discretion in
reasoning is the rule, not case. Judges
a

branches of government and

applying the rules laid down by other
their task is limited to interpretation.2
dominant
style of
using a syllogism is the
The deductive form
has an established
in legal reasoning
legal reasoning. A syllogism
minor premise, and a
structure, consisting of a major premise,
a

statement that is true of a class

conclusion. The major premise posits a
of objects; the minor premise characterizes a particular object
as

that the statement is

belonging to the class; and the conclusion asserts
therefore true of the particular object."
states a rule of law
n legal reasoning, the major premise
predicate; the
aPplicable to a class of situations described in the factual

2vENBURTON,
2
AN INTRODUCTION TO LAW AND LEGAL REAsONING 41 (1985).
ld. at 41-2.
7 VENDEVELDE, THINKING LIKE A LAWYER: AN INTRODUCTION TO LECAL kEAS
67 (1998).
 EssENTIALs 3.0
LEGAL METHOD
166

situation as either satisfuri.

characterizes a
particular ng or
minor premise
of a
factual oredicate; and the conclusion
elements
the the particular situation That
not satisfying rule applies to
states whether
the general while the minor D r e n
announces a rule of law,

is, the major premise client's situation,

and the conclusion tates
describes the facts
of the
described in the rule of law has been
whether the right or duty
client's situation.4
the facts of the
demonstrated to exist under

of a case where the Supreme Court emploved

An example Industrial Corporation
deductive reasoning is the
case
of First Philippine
issue in that case was whether a pipeline operator
Courtof Appeals.5 The
of transporting petroleum products from the
"engaged in the business
to Sucat and JTF Pandacan Terminals"
Batangas refineries, via pipeline, the Local Government Code.
business taxes under
was exempt from
could not be exempt from
The City of Batangas argued that petitioner
taxes under Section 133 (G) of the Code because the exemption applied
in the
only "transportation contractors and persons engaged
to
land and water"
transportation by hire and common carriers by air,
The City argued that the ternm "common carrier" referred only to

carriers such trucks, trains, ships and the like, and not to
ordinary as

pipelines.
The Supreme Court disagreed. It explained that a "common
carrier" may be defined as one who holds himself out to the public
as engaged in the business of transporting persons or property trom

place to place, for compensation, offering his services to the pubie

generally. It examined Article 1732 of the Civil Code which defines a
"common carrier" as "any on
person, corporation, firm or associa
engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passenge
goods or both, by land, water, or air, for
compensation, oTrer
their services to the public." The Court concluded that the petino
ioner
had satisfied the
definition of a common carrier because it was
engaged in the business of transporting or carrying 8o0 rtookit.

petroleum products, for hire as ertook

to for all
public employment.
a
carry persons (that is, to all persons who chose to employ
cnd

1d.
G.R. No. 125948, December 29, 1998.
 ANALYTICAL REASONING | 167

its services), and transported the goods by land and for

compensation. The definition of "common carriers" in the Civil

does not make any distinction as to the means of

Code
long as
as it is by land, water or air. It does not
transportation,
of the passengers or goods should be
orovide that the transportation
by motor vehicle.

ANALOGY
One
The second form of reasoning
is reasoning by analogy.
this way:
author explains it in
the most common form of analogical
In law,
law
of precedent. In common

reasoning is the
use
are
jurisprudential systems... court decisions
of law. When a
as a valid source
recognized discovered that is "on
decided case is
previously
governs the
case
case
point," the rule of the previous
is
infrequently, the previous
case
Not
to be decided.
the to be decided. In
point with
case
on
not precisely whether the
the court must decide
this circumstance,
ruleto
previous is sufficiently analogous for its
case
decided. It also frequently
case to be
govern the
there is m o r e
than one case that
happens that at hand. In that
to the case
arguably applies must
circumstance, courts
that r e a s o n by analogy
similar
cases is most
determine which of the previous

to the case to be decided.

reasons that
which one
An analogy is a form of logic by in at
are alike

Decause two items are alike in at

least one respect, they one
identifies at least
east one other respect. In analogy, the lawyer

VILL. L.
Realism, 48
Formalism, Analogy, and
un,
s 314-315
The Stages of Legal Reasoning:
REv. 305,
(2003).
 EssENTIALs 3.0
168 LEGAL METHOD

prior case-one precedent-that seems to have facts in common with

the client's situation.7

If the lawyer believes that facts of the client's case ars

those of the precedent, the lawyer concludes that the precedent sho like
be followed. Analogy involves three steps. First, the lawyer identi nould
.
rule or holding announced in a prior case. Ihe rule serves the
tifies
ction
a
of a major premise in a syllogism. Second, the lawyer detemin
whether the facts are like those of a prior case. Finally,
the
characterization of the facts as like or unlike those of the precede.
yields the conclusion that the client's situation should or should
not
have the same legal consequence as the facts in the precedent.s

Analogy is different from deduction in that in the former.

lawyer uses one specific case to decide another specific case. In the
latter, a lawyer uses a general rule to decide a specific case.?

Analogical reasoning is considered advantageous because

a. it produces a wealth of data for decision making;

b it represernts the collaborative effort of a number of judges
Over time;

C. it tends to correct biases that might lead judges to discount

the force of prior decisions;
d. and it exerts a conservative force in law, holding the

development of law to a gradual pace.10

Illustrative Cases
If a court finds that a case is sufficiently similar to the one
it
considering, then the older case is
considered "on all the
fours WIu

VENDEVELDE, Supra note, 3 at 86.

ld. at 87.
Id.
"Emily Sherwin, A
Sherwin discusses theDefense of
(19
Analogical Reasoning in Law, 66 U. c L. REv. 1179

objections to theuse
use of analogous reasoning. See ld. at
an 1184-110
 ANALYTICAL REASONING | 169

resent case.Past decisions that "are not on all fours with the facts"
to a new case.12
cannot be applied
In Lasoy . Zenarosa,13 the issue was whether it was still possible
to amend an information after the accused was arraigned, convicted,

and had applied for probation. The prosecution sought the amend ment
that the information was allegedly tampered with. It
on the ground
ited what they claimed was the analogous case of Galman v
that the trial in Lasoy was likewise a
Sandiganbayan" and argued
between the cases, however,
"sham." The Supreme Court distinguished
because in Galman, then President Marcos ordered the Sandiganbayan
closely
and to monitor the entire
and Tanodbayan to rig the trial
to assure the acquittal of the accused
from all the charges
proceedings
filed against them, which were facts that were not present in Lasoy.

dismissed an appeal filed

In another case, the Court of Appeals
fourteen days beyond the deadline allowed by law. The issue in Bigornia
the Court of Appeals acted with grave
v.Court of Appealsl5 was whether
refused to admit the appellants' brief. The
abuse of discretion when it
the dismissal of an appeal under Section 1 (e),
petitioners argued that
not mandatory. They cited the
Rule 50 of the Rules of Court is directory,
case of United Feature Syndicate, Inc.
v. Munsingwear Creation
wherein the Court, in the interest of
Manufacturing Company,16
Court agreed and held
substantial justice, allowed a late appeal. The
that technical and procedural rules are intended to ensure, not suppress,
other cases where it
substantial justice. The Supreme Court pointed to
case from its
had suspended its own rules or exempted a particular
within
strict operation where the appellant failed to perfect his appeal
the proper period.
task. The creation
of the
Identifying precedent is not always a simple
Municipality of Alicia in Bohol became an issue in Candijay v.

2, 2012 and Fenequito

public of the Philippines Gomez, G.R. No. 189021, February
v.

V.Vergara, Jr., G.R. No. 172829, July 18, 2012.

26, 2013.
azareno Maersk Filipinas Crewing, Inc., G.R. No. 168703, February
v.

G.R. No. 129472,

G.R. No.
April 12, 2005.
L-72670, September 12, 1986.
G.R. No. 173017,
March 17, 2009.
G.R. No. 76193,
November 9, 1989.
 EssENTIALS 3.0
METHOD
170 LEGAL

created by Executive O .
Appeals
because it was Order No. 265
Court of
issued in 1949 pursuant to Section 68 of the Revised Administr
strative
however, was previously declared unconstitu
Code. Section 68,
Auditor General.18 In the
Court in Pelaez v.
latter
illegal. The Coucase,
the Supreme
created under Section
68 were declared
municipalities
in Candijay ruled in favor of the Municipality relying on the mowrt
recent
decision of Municipality of San Narciso, Quezon v. Mendez, Sr,19
Respondent municipality's situation in the instant
case is strikingly similar to that of the municipality of
San Andres. Respondent municipality of Alicia was
created by virtue of Executive Order No. 265 in 1949,
or ten years ahead of the municipality of San Andres,
and therefore had been in existence for all of sixteen
years when Pelaez vs. Auditor General (citation

omitted) was promulgated. And various

governmental acts throughout the years all indicate
the State's recognition and acknowledgment of the
existence thereof. For instance, under Administrative
Order No. 33 . , the Municipality of Alicia was
covered by the 7th Murnicipal Circuit Court of Alicia-
Mabini for the province of Bohol. Likewise, under the
Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution, the
Municipality of Alicia is one of twenty municipalities
comprising the Third District of Bohol.

Inasmuch as respondernt municipality of Alicia is

similarly situated as the municipality of San Andres,
it should likewise benefit from the effects of Section
442(d) of the Local Government Code, and should
henceforth be considered as a
regular, de jure
municipality.
he t's
lawyer should be alert to changes in the ou sy
decisions to
know which precedent governs the
presen
G.R. No. 116702,
1
G.R. No. December 28, 1995.
G.R. No. L-23825, December 24, 1965.
103702, December 6,
1994.
 ANALYTICAL REASONING | 171

never
been oven erturned. It was inapplicable, however, in
has
Pelaez that the municipal corporations in Sun Narciso and
fact tha
of the
light
were de facto orations. With
corpo the enactment of the Local
Candijay both became de jure. Pelaez dealt with
Government Code,
completely void.
that were
municipalities
can be found in the case of Salva v.
Another example
whether a regional trial court
issue in that case was
Makalintal,20 The Commission on Elections from
to enjoin the
had jurisdiction the abolition ofa
for conducting a plebiscite on
implementing rules
cases which they argued were
Both sides to the dispute cited
barangay.
Court ruled against the trial court,
in the present case. The
controlling the
shows how the Supreme Court managed
but the following excerpt
the parties:
arguments of
SCRA 99 [1996])
In Garces vs. Court of Appeals (259 The Supreme
and Machine Shop vs. Ferrer Court cited
and Filipinas Engineering
25 [1985]), we found occasion to interpret two cases
(135 SCRA where the
in this wise:
the foregoing provision same issue was

already
". .. What is contemplated by decided by the
the term 'final orders, rulings Supreme
COMELEC
and decisions' of the Court.
certiorari by the
reviewable by
Supreme Court as provided by
law arethose rendered in actions The Court quotes
or proceedings before the from the previous
COMELECC and taken ruling to explain
cognizance of by the said body the prevailing rule.

in the exercise of its adjudicatory

or quasi-judicial powers."

in Filipinas, we have likewise affirmed that

POWers vested by the Constitution and the law on

ne Commission on Elections may either be

assitied those pertaining

as to its adjudicatory

"GR. No.
132603, September 18, 2000.
 172 LEGAL METHOD EssENTIALS 3.0

those which are

functions, or
or quasi-judicial
and sometimes
administrative
inherently
ministerial in character.

General that "... [t]he

.We agree with the Solicitor No.
Resolution
2987 is thus
issuance of [COMELEC)
COMELEC that is enjoined
a ministerial duty of the To resolve the
its adnministrative
and parcel of
by law and is part of discretionary issue, the Court
no exercise
functions. It involves
let has to determine
respondent COMELEC; whether the
authority on the part of or quasi-judicial
alone an exercise of its adjudicatory
controversies defining the
Resolution was
resolve issued in an
power to hear and relative to the
rights and duties of party-litigants, administrative
officers and the or quasi-judicial
conduct of elections of public
omitted.) function.
enforcement of the election laws." (Citation
No. 2987 which
COMELEC Resolution
Briefly, the
regulations governing
and
provides for the rules
was not issued
conduct of the required plebiscite,
COMELEC's quasi-judicial
functions
pursuant to the
incident of its inherent
but merely as an
functions over the conduct of
administrative
not be
the said resolution may
plebiscites, thus,
deemed as a "final order" reviewable by certiorari by
to the validity of
this Court. Any question pertaining
said resolution may be well taken in
an ordinary civil
action before the trial courts.

Even the cases cited by the public respondent in

that the power to review
support of its contention
-

or reverse COMELEC Resolution No. 2987 solely

belongs to this Court are simply not in point. Zaldivar
vs. Estenzo speaks of the power of the COMELEC TO The Court
explains that the
enforce and administer all laws relative to the
ISsues in the
conduct of elections to the exclusion of the judiciarý. cases citedbythe
In the present case, petitioners are not contesting the respondent are

exclusive authority of the COMELEC to epforce and notsimilar to the

administer election laws. Luison vs. Gafcia refers to p r e s e n t case.

this Coure's power to review "administrative

 ANALYTICAL REAsONING | 173

decisions," particularly referring to a COMELEC

resolution declaring a certain certificate of candidacy
null and void, based on Article X, Section 2 of the
1935 Constitution. In Macud vs. COMELEC, we
reiterated that when a board ot canvassers rejects an
election return on the ground that it is spurious or
has been tampered with, the aggrieved party may
elevate the matter to the COMELEC for appropriate
relief, and if the COMELEC sustains the action of the
board, the aggrieved party may appeal to this Court.
In both Luison and Macud, the assailed COMELEC
resolutions fall within the purview of "final orders,
rulings and decisions" of the COMELEC reviewable
Court.
by certiorari by this
This excerpt illustrates how parties to a case use analogy to
persuade the Court to rule in their favor. Both sides argued that the past
decisions of the Court presented a rule that favored their interests.
Again, the Supreme Court was able to distinguish the cases cited by the
respondents and disregard them because they were "not in point."

In Torralba v. Sibagat,21 the Court again illustrated how its prior

decisions may be inapplicable to pending cases. In that case, the issue
was the validity of the creation of the Municipality of Sibagat. The
Court upheld the creation of the statute holding that the failure of the
Legislature to enact a local government code did not prevent it fromn
creating a municipality. But the Court cited another decision it felt
might be perceived as inconsistent with their ruling. Here is an excerpt:

We are not unmindful of the case of Tan vs.~

The Supreme
OMELEC (142 SCRA 727 [1986]), striking down Court
as unconstitutional BP Blg. 885 creating a new
acknowledges a
province in the Island of Negros known as the prior decision that
Province of Negros del Norte, and declaring the potentially applies
plebiscite held in connection therewith as illegal. to the case.

a
G.R. No.
L-59180, January 29, 1987.
 EssENTIALS 3.0
174|LEGAL METHOD

in the
differences, however,
significant
There are
which may
be mentioned the
two cases among Government
the Local
following: in the Tan case,
that the
The Court
the time
Code already
existed at
3 December explains that
statute was
enacted on there are
challenged bar. Secondly,
BP Bldg. factual
c a s e at
not so in the
1985;
Tan case
confined the plebiscite
to the differences
885 in the exclusion of the between Tan
province"to the
"proposed new
contravention of and Torralba.
areas, in
in the remaining
voters
mandate andof the Local
Constitutional
the should be
G o v e r n m e n t Code
that the plebiscite
contrast, BP
units affected." In
held "in the unit o r the
provides for a plebiscite "in
56 specifically as previously
affected." In fact,
or areas
as to the
area

question is raised herein

stated, no
conducted. Thirdly, in
legality of the plebiscite the
the requisite a r e a for
the Tan case, even
w a s not complied
with
creation of a n e w province
issue in the creation of
the
in BP Blg. 885. No such
And
new municipality
has beern raised here.
enactment of
"indecent haste" attended the
lastly,
BP Blg. 885 and the holding of the plebiscite
the other hand, BP
thereafter in the Tan case; on

56 creating ne Municipality Sibagat, was

of
and
enacted in the normal course of legislation,
the plebiscite was held within the period specified
in that law.