Hernandez, De Jesus, &

Dalumpines ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW

The following are examples of each fallacies:

Argumentum Ad Hominem

1. In the case of Atty. Mane vs Judge Belen1, where the Supreme Court found the respondent guilty of
unbecoming of a judge, the following is the transcript lifted from the case:

COURT:
. . . Sir, are you from the College of Law of the University of the Philippines?

ATTY. MANE:
No[,] [Y]our Honor[,] from Manuel L. Quezon University[,] [Y]our Honor.

COURT:
No, youre not from UP.

ATTY. MANE:
I am very proud of it.

COURT:
Then youre not from UP. Then you cannot equate yourself to me because there is a
saying and I know this, not all law students are created equal, not all law schools are
created equal, not all lawyers are created equal despite what the Supreme Being that
we all are created equal in His form and substance.

2. In the case of Santos v. Aranzanso2, where the Supreme Court found one of the testimony admitted is
Ad Hominem at its best. The following deserve no consideration:

Almost from their birth, the petitioner Paulina Santos de Parreo and her late sister
had been living with the spouses Simplicio and Juliana Reyes; they had reared for and
educated the children; they were the only parents the children knew. After the
adoption, the relationship continued but in an intensified degree. The children, in
gratitude to the adoption, gave their foster parents their services, their respect, their
attention and care.

Were Doa Juliana alive today, she would never have questioned the adoption; she
would have fought with all the fury of a mother defending her young, against the
respondents' incursions on her properties which she intended her adopted daughters to
enjoy after she dies.

Moreover, if any irregularity was perpetrated to achieve the adoption, the minors were
its innocent victims; in the eyes of the law, as the petitioner for adoption, Doa Juliana
was, at least in part, responsible for whatever wrongs may there have been committed;
so that, even if she would wish to, she could not have taken advantage of the wrong to
annul the decree of adoption she had sought and obtained.

Suffice it to say, therefore, that the respondents, if they have any rights at all, can have
no greater rights that Doa Juliana had. She could not and would not have questioned
the adoption. What right then, what personality now, do respondents have to what
Doa Juliana could not and would not have done. Certainly, none.

Page 1 of 6
 Hernandez, De Jesus, &
Dalumpines ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW

1 Mane v. Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119, (2008)

2 Santos v. Aranzanso, G.R. No. L-26940, August 21, 1982

Argumentum Ad Misericordiam

1. People v Ryan3

In People v. Ryan, the court reduced from one year to six months the defendant's sentence for
obstructing governmental administration. The court's reason was "the completeness of the defendant's
disgrace, his discharge from the Department, his loss of pension, and the piteous spectacle of his stricken
wife and handicapped children, all utterly reliant on his presence. " The court recognized that it was
responding to a plea ad misericordiam, but stated that when confronted with such a plea the court "must
take a broader view of all the facts and circumstances, measuring justice and the rights of society,
punishment and the avoidance of cruelty. " The court added that "mercy, in its proper place, is an
attribute of an appellate court.

2. State ex rel. Commissioners of Land Office v. Amoco Production CO4

The court in State ex rel. Commissioners of Land Office v. Amoco Production CO.
considered an oil and gas lease that was to continue "' as long . . . as oil or gas . . .
[was] produced in paying quantities. Production at the well subject to the lease ceased
because of mechanical difficulty beyond the lessee's control. The lessee immediately
drilled a second well and restored production. Because the lease produced no royalties
for a time, the lessor asked that the lease be cancelled. The court refused, noting that
"[c]ancellation of the lease under these circumstances would be harsh and unfair. "
The court recognized the ad misericordiam nature of the argument against
cancellation, quoting language from cases tracing back to the views of Justice
Cardozo:

"There is no undeviating principle that equity shall enforce the

covenants of a mortgage, unmoved by an appeal ad misericordiam,
however urgent or affecting. The development of the jurisdiction of
the chancery is lined with historic monuments that point another
course . . . . One could give many illustrations of the traditional and
unchallenged exercise of a like dispensing power. It runs through the
whole rubric of accident and mistake. Equity follows the law, but not
slavishly nor always. "

Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

1. Board of Trustees of the Fire & Police Employees Retirement System v. Powell 5

In Board of Trustees of the Fire & Police Employees Retirement System v. Powell, the
court's reasoning apparently rested on the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. In
Powell the trustees of a fire department retirement system challenged the award of
disability retirement to a fire fighter who had contracted hepatitis-B. The hearing

Page 2 of 6
 Hernandez, De Jesus, &
Dalumpines ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW

examiner awarded the fire fighter the disability retirement, accepting the fire fighter's
argument:

3Saunders, Kevin W., Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation, available at

http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1444&context=facpubs (last accessed May 3,
2017)
4 Saunders, Kevin W., Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation, available at
http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1444&context=facpubs (last accessed May 3,
2017)
5 Id

"[S]ince he ... was ... free of the disease when he was hired as a firefighter . . . and
since there is no indication or explanation of how he might have acquired the disease
other than through his contacts with victims who he was required to treat as part of his
emergency medical technician duties, his incapacity should be held to arise out of and
in the course of the actual course of his job."

On appeal the court held that the fire fighter failed to establish that his hepatitis had
been caused by events related to his employment. As the court acknowledged:

"The law requires proof of probable, not merely possible, facts, including a causal
relationship. Reasoning post hoc, propter hoc is a recognized logical fallacy, a non
sequitur. But sequence of events, plus proof of possible causal relation, may amount to
proof of probable causal relation, in the absence of evidence of any other equally
probable cause.

The Powell court recognized that more is required to indicate a probable causal
relation than simply eliminating other suggested causes. In this case, inferring that the
cause stemmed from a work-related event by eliminating other possible causes would
have been an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

2. Joe McCarthy said he was presenting to the Senate cases in which it was clear that individuals had
Communist connections. With one case, however, he said "I do not have much information on this
except the general statement of the agencythat there is nothing in the files to disprove his
Communist connections." His argument was that because there was no evidence against a
Communist connection for a person, that person must be working with the Communists. 6

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause Fallacy)

1. Isaksen v. Vermont Castings, Inc 7

In Isaksen v. Vermont Castings, Inc, Isaksen concerned an antitrust action by a dealer in wood-burning
stoves against the supplier of the stoves. The plaintiff s only proof of damages was a comparison of his
average profits for several years before the unlawful activity with his profits during the period of
unlawful activity. Judge Posner, writing for the court, noted that oil prices had fallen during that time
span and that the wood stove market had become saturated, both of which would negatively affect wood

Page 3 of 6
 Hernandez, De Jesus, &
Dalumpines ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW

stove sales. He identified the plaintiffs "proof" as a post hoc ergo propter hoc and as an unacceptable
method for calculating damages, especially when other factors were involved.

2. Bradshaw v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp. 8

In Bradshaw v. State Accident Insurance Fund Corp., the court recognized the post hoc ergo propter hoc
character of the argument offered, but nevertheless accepted the reasoning. The issue in Bradshaw, a
workers' compensation appeal, was whether the claimant had demonstrated that her disabling headaches
were caused by a work-related foot injury. The claimant rarely had headaches before the injury, but she
began having severe headaches while hospitalized with her infected foot. Specialists could not fmd the
cause of the headaches, leaving the court with only the chronological relationship. The court stated:

6 Richard H. Rovere, Senator Joe McCarthy (Methuen, 1960), pp. 106-107

7 Supra note 4
8 Id

We have always been hesitant to infer causation from chronological sequence. Post hoc ergo
propter hoc is a classic logical fallacy. Yet, as Sherlock Holmes noted, when one has excluded
all other explanations, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true ....

The headaches must have some cause. The close connection between their onset and claimant's
physical condition, combined with the inability to find any specific cause for them, lead us to
agree with claimant's physician's application of Sherlock Holmes' principle. We find it more
probable than not that the headaches were caused by the direct effects of claimant's injury and,
therefore, that they are compensable.

Hasty Generalization

1. Leake v. Casati 9

At issue in Leake was whether a local subdivision ordinance applied to a division of real property
ordered by the court. The county argued that if the subdivision ordinance was inapplicable, then all
local ordinances were also inapplicable. 136 The generalization that all local ordinances are
inapplicable because one specific ordinance is inapplicable is an exceptionally hasty generalization.
137 The court recognized the fallacy and concluded: "[I]t does not follow that those who become
owners of the resulting parcels will be immune to valid laws regulating land use. "

2. Quotes from Donald Trumps candidacy announcement 10

When Mexico sends its people, theyre not sending their best. Theyre not sending you. Theyre
not sending you. Theyre sending people that have lots of problems and theyre bringing those
problems with us. Theyre bringing drugs, theyre bringing crime, theyre rapists, and some, I
assume, are good people.

Tu Quoque

1. Revere Camera Co. v. Masters Mail Order CO 11

Page 4 of 6
 Hernandez, De Jesus, &
Dalumpines ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW

In Revere Camera Co. v. Masters Mail Order CO, the plaintiff, a Delaware corporation whose
principal place of business was in Illinois, brought suit against a Maryland corporation, whose place
of business was in the District of Columbia. The defendant moved for a change of venue to the
District of Columbia, suggesting that the plaintiff was forum shopping because Maryland had a fair
trade law but the District of Columbia did not. The court stated: "As to this plaintiff's counsel
seem[ed] to reply that in similar vein the same comment could be made with respect to the
defendant's motion to transfer the case to Washington or, to borrow a closely equivalent Latin phrase
'et tu quoque. After recognizing the nature of the tu quoque, the court found the plaintiff's response
irrelevant.

9Id
10 Sydney T., (2016, February 4) Trumps Hasty Generalization, availalble at
http://trueamericanstories.blogspot.com/2016/02/in-these-past-presidential-debates-all.html (last accessed May
3, 2017)
11 Saunders, Kevin W., Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation, available at
http://digitalcommons.law.msu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1444&context=facpubs (last accessed May 3,
2017)

2. It was locker room talk, as I told you. That was locker room talk. Im not proud of it. I am a person
who has great respect for people, for my family, for the people of this country. And certainly, Im not
proud of it. But that was something that happened.If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse. Mine are
words, and his was action. His was what hes done to women. Theres never been anybody in the
history politics in this nation thats been so abusive to women. So you can say any way you want to
12
say it, but Bill Clinton was abusive to women. Donald Trump

Donald Trump when asked about how he treats women.

Non Sequitur

1. Rhein v. City of Frontenac 13

In Rhein property owners sought a declaratory judgment that the zoning classification of their
property was unreasonable. One of the city's arguments on appeal was that, because the city had
complied with state-mandated procedural requirements, the refusal to rezone could not be
unreasonable. The assertion is a conditional: "If proper procedure is followed, then the decision
reached is reasonable. The court had no difficulty in identifying the claim as a non-sequitur.

2. Papadakis v. Zelis 14

In Papadakis v. Zelis, one party complained that judgment should not have been entered in the
action under appeal because other suits were pending between the parties. The court labelled the
contention a non-sequitur because the pendency of the other actions did not affect the fmality of the
action appealed. In effect, the assertion 'Jas a conditional of the form, "if other actions are pending,
judgment may not be entered in the action under appeal. The court responded that there was no
such relationship between the action on appeal and the pending actions.

Page 5 of 6
 Hernandez, De Jesus, &
Dalumpines ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW

12
5 Logical Fallacies from the Second Clinton Trump Debate, available at https://medium.com/@Chiasma/5-
logical-fallacies-from-the-second-clinton-trump-debate-4080336314e1 (last accessed May 3, 2017)
13
Supra note 11
14
Id

Page 6 of 6