Reasoning

Reasoning SCANNER Normal JOJO 3 8 2002-01-15T03:55:00Z 2002-01-15T04:17:00Z 2 511 2917 SC 24 5 3582 9.2720 110

III. The Logical Flow in Case-Analysis :

1. What claim is it that the parties make? What are the parties' respective claims? What are the claims of the parties?

1.1 'The defendant is liable in damages'. This is an example of a claim. So is: 'The accused is liable for homicide through reckless imprudence'.

1.2 In the first place, the claim must be something the law allows the court to entertain or a relief that laws allow the court to grant.

2. What are the grounds on which the opposing claims rest? What are the grounds relied upon by the opposing parties?

2.1 What facts are advanced by the parties as key facts?

2.2 What facts are in issue? Which facts directly relate to the issue?

2.3 Not all facts the parties urge upon the court are key facts. Decisions are unduly long at times because they tackle facts that are not key facts at all.

2.4 Which facts are key facts also depends on the factual grounds that the law requires to support certain claims.

Example: In suing against a common carrier for the death of a passenger, the law sets forth the key facts for consideration:

a) Did a contract of carriage exist?

b) Is the passenger or are the goods in the same condition as they were at the time of the inception of the journey or voyage?

c) In case not, can the common carrier account for the passenger or for the goods?

3. What is the warrant for the claims?

3.1 Which laws or rules are cited by the parties that allow them to raise their claims on the grounds they advance?

3.2 Are the laws so cited still good law? Have there been repeals or amendments? Are the laws still effective?

3.3 If equity is the warrant for the claim, is equity properly invoked? (Note: Equity can never be invoked to disregard the prescriptions of law.)

4. What backing is there for the use of the warrant? Is there existing jurisprudence? If so, what is it?

4.1 Is the interpretation of law acceptable?

4.2 Is it in accordance with judicial doctrine? How has the Supreme Court interpreted the law?

4.3 Does the interpretation satisfy the standards of legal hermeneutics, particularly of statutory construction?

5. When a case is analyzed, it is useful to identify:

5.1 The parties:

5.1.1 their identities

5.1.2 their relevant relations

5.1.3 their litigation statuses: Who is plaintiff? Who is defendant? Who is the intervenor? Who is the cross-claimant? Who is the third-party defendant?

5.2 Their objectives:

5.2.1 What is it that they ask of the court? What reliefs do they seek from the court?

5.2.2 If the objective is procedural (e.g., a writ of injunction), what is the substantive objective that the party pursues (e.g., the abandonment of a construction project)?

5.3 Their theories:

5.3.1 Is the defense using the theory of self-defense? Is alibi is being used? Is the accident victim suing on the basis of the contract of carriage or of tort?

5.3.2 How good are these theories?

5.4 What are the key facts?

5.4.1 Which are those facts which, if otherwise, would produce a different result?

5.4.2 Which are those facts that alter the relations between the parties?

5.4.3 Which are those facts that create new rights or impose new obligations?

5.5 What are the issues?

5.5.1 What are the issues of fact? What are the issues of law?

5.5.2 It is at pre-trial that the issue should be definitely set forth.

5.5.3 It is the issues that became the basis of determining relevance or irrelevance of evidence.

6. When a judge resolves an issue of fact, the result is a finding. When the judge resolves an issue of law, the result is a holding.