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

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

The correct way of saying this is 'demarer' 2) Subpoena - others usually say it as 'subpina'. But the correct way of saying this is 'supina', i.e., silent 'b' 3) precedent - we usually encounter this with the terms 'judicial precedent' and 'condition precedent'. there's really no confusion here. what i like to point out is that it is also correct to pronounce this as you pronounce the word 'president'. That is also correct. So do not laugh at someone when he pronounces the word 'precedent' as if he was referring to GMA .

4) Prima facie - when I first started in law school, I had no idea how to say this word. I've heard others say this as 'prima fasha'. WRONG ehehe fashee. . The correct way of saying this is 'prima

5) In Pais - this we see and hear with the term estoppel in pais. others pronounce it as it is spelled, i.e., 'in pais' like you say mais (tagalog for corn). The correct way of pronouncing this is 'in pie' as in American PIE. 6) Cestui que trust - in Civil Law cases, we usually encounter this Latin term with the sentence "there was no repudiation of the cestui que trust..". If you were asked to recite a case with that word, how would you pronounce it Say it as 'seti ke trust'. ? 'cestwe kwe trust' ? No, don't say it like that .

Sorry for the longhand. Hope you enjoy the discussion and most importantly, I hope I was able to provide additional information on how to properly use Legalese. Please feel free to share here any legal term which you think are improperly used / pronounced usually. And to correct the words I've written here if I also committed a mistake in providing the right answer.