30 THE PHILJA JUDICIAL JOURNAL [VOL.

4:14

T he FFour
our “Cs” of Ef
Efffecti
ectivve F. Parts of a Trial Court Decision
1. Caption and Title
Decision-W riting: An Intr
Decision-Writing: oduction
Introduction 2. Introduction (optional)
for Newl y-A
Newly-A ppointed JJudg
y-Appointed udg
udgeses 3. Statement of the Case
a. Civil Cases
Justice Artemio V. Panganiban∗ b. Criminal Cases
4. Findings of Facts
Supreme Court a. Objective or Reportorial Method
b. Synthesis Method
c. Subjective Method
I. COMPLETENESS ................................................................................ 31 d. Combination of the Objective and
A. Article VIII, Section 14, Constitution Subjective Methods
B. Rule 36, Section I, Rules of Court 5. Statement of the Issues
C. Rule 120, Section 2, Rules of Court 6. Court’s Ruling
Case 1: Yao v. Court of Appeals 7. Dispositive Portion or Disposition
Case 2: People v. Bugarin a. Criminal Cases
Case 3: Madrid v. Court of Appeals b. Civil Cases
D. Rule 16, Section 3, Rules of Court
(Motion to Dismiss)
Case 1: Pefianco v. Moral
A distinguished civic leader and business leader, he was the first
E. Sanctions for Failure to Follow Legal Requirements Asian to be elected International Chairman of the American
(Reversal of Decision and Possible Administrative Society of Travel Agents or ASTA International, the largest
Liabilities) travel association in the world. An active Catholic Lay Leader,
he held the very rare distinction of being a Member of the
∗ Pontifical Council for the Laity (PLC), appointed by Pope
Justice Artemio V. Panganiban was appointed to the Supreme
Court on October 10, 1995. He is Chairman of the Executive John Paul II in 1995 for a five-year term. He has been cited as
Committee of the Supreme Court Centenary Celebrations and one of the most prodigious members of the Supreme Court in
the Committee on Public Information, and Vice Chairman of terms of number of decisions authored, legal references
the Committee on Publications as well as the Committee on published, and numerous articles written in both local and
Computerization. In representation of the Supreme Court, international legal publications. He obtained his Bachelor of
he was designated Alternate Delegate to the 7th Conference Laws degree, Cum Laude, and received the Most Outstanding
of Asian Chief Justices in Seoul, Korea in September 1999. Student Award, from Far Eastern University.
2002] THE FOUR Cs OF EFFECTIVE 31 32 THE PHILJA JUDICIAL JOURNAL [VOL. 4:14
DECISION-WRITING

II. CORRECTNESS ................................................................................... 45 shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by the
A. Some Guidelines in Correct Legal Writing judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on
1. Be Grammatical. which it is based, signed by him, and filed with the clerk
2. Be Clear and Precise. of court (1a).
3. Use Specific Words that are Well-Positioned.
III. CLARITY .............................................................................................. 49 C. Rule 120, Section 2, Rules of Cour
Rules Courtt
A. Be Simple. SEC. 2. Contents of the judgment. – If the judgment is
B. Be Consistent in Tone, Tense, Words, Images, and the of conviction, it shall state (1) the legal qualification of
Logical and Grammatical Parallelism of Words or the offense constituted by the acts committed by the accused
Group of Words. and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances which
C. Remember for General Use attended its commission; (2) the participation of the accused
IV. CONCISENESS .................................................................................... 51 in the offense, whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory
after the fact; (3) the penalty imposed upon the accused;
V. FINAL WORD .................................................................................... 52
and (4) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful
act or omission to be recovered from the accused by the
offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of
I. C OMPLETENESS the civil liability by a separate civil action has been reserved
or waived.
The following are the legal requirements on the contents of a In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether
decision: the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove
the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt
A. Ar tic
Artic le VIII, Section 14, Constitution
ticle beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment
shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil
SEC. 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without
liability might arise did not exist.
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the
law on which it is based.
Case 1: Yao vv.. Cour
Courtt of Appeals
Appeals
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a
decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied
In Yao v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 132428, October 24,
without stating legal basis therefor. 2000], Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. discussed these legal
requirements in this wise:
B. Rule 36, Section 1, Rules of Cour
Rules Courtt In the normal and natural course of events, we should dismiss
SEC. 1. Rendition of judgments and final orders. – A the petition outright, if not for an important detail which
judgment or final order determining the merits of the case augurs well for Yao and would grant him a reprieve in his
legal battle. The decision of the RTC affirming the
2002] THE FOUR Cs OF EFFECTIVE 33 34 THE PHILJA JUDICIAL JOURNAL [VOL. 4:14
DECISION-WRITING

conviction of Yao palpably transgressed Section 14, Article That is all there is to it.
VIII of the Constitution, which states: We have sustained decisions of lower courts having
SEC. 14. No decision shall be rendered by any substantially or sufficiently complied with the constitutional
court without expressing therein clearly and injunction, notwithstanding the laconic and terse manner
distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. in which they were written and even ‘if there [was left]
much to be desired in terms of [their] clarity, coherence
xxx
and comprehensibility,’ provided that they eventually set
Let us quote in full the RTC judgment: out the facts and the law on which they were based, as
This is an appeal from the decision of the when they stated the legal qualifications of the offense
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 52, Kalookan constituted by the facts proved, the modifying
City, in Criminal Case No. C-155713, the circumstances, the participation of the accused, the penalty
dispositive portion of which reads as follows: imposed and the civil liability; or discussed the facts
comprising the elements of the offense that was charged in
xxx the information, and accordingly rendered a verdict and
But because the prosecution proved the guilt of imposed the corresponding penalty; or quoted the facts
the other accused, George Yao, beyond reasonable narrated in the prosecution’s memorandum, but made their
doubt as principal under the said Article 189 (1) own findings and assessment of evidence before finally
for Unfair Competition, he is convicted of the agreeing with the prosecution’s evaluation of the case.
same. In the absence of any aggravating or We have also sanctioned the use of memorandum decisions,
mitigating circumstances alleged/proven, and a specie of succinctly written decisions by appellate courts
considering the provisions of the Indeterminate in accordance with the provisions of Section 40, B.P. Blg.
Sentence Law, he is sentenced to a minimum of 129 on the grounds of expediency, practicality, convenience
four (4) months and twenty-one (21) days of and docket status of our courts. We have also declared
arresto mayor to a maximum of one (1) year and that memorandum decisions comply with the constitutional
five (5) months of prison correccional. mandate.
xxx In Francisco v. Permskul (173 SCRA 324, May 12, 1989),
After going over the evidence on record, the Court however, we laid down the conditions for the validity of
finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings of memorandum decisions, thus:
the Metropolitan Trial Court. The memorandum decision, to be valid, cannot
WHEREFORE, this Court affirms in toto the incorporate the findings of fact and the conclusions
decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court dated of law of the lower court only by remote reference,
October 20, 1993. which is to say that the challenged decision is not
easily and immediately available to the person
SO ORDERED. reading the memorandum decision. For the
2002] THE FOUR Cs OF EFFECTIVE 35 36 THE PHILJA JUDICIAL JOURNAL [VOL. 4:14
DECISION-WRITING

incorporation by reference to be allowed, it must Henceforth, all memorandum decisions shall

provide for direct access to the facts and the law comply with the requirements herein set forth both
being adopted, which must be contained in a as to the form prescribed and the occasions when
statement attached to the said decision. In other they may be rendered. Any deviation will summon
words, the memorandum decision authorized under the strict enforcement of Article VIII, Section 14
Section 40 of B.P. Blg. 129 should actually embody of the Constitution and strike down the flawed
the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the judgment as a lawless disobedience.
lower court in an annex attached to and made an
Tested against these standards, we find that the RTC
indispensable part of the decision.
decision at bar failed miserably to meet them and, therefore,
It is expected that this requirement will allay the fell short of the constitutional injunction. The RTC
suspicion that no study was made of the decision decision is brief indeed, but it is starkly hallow, otiosely
of the lower court and that its decision was merely written, vacuous in its content and trite in its form. It
affirmed without a proper examination of the facts achieved nothing and attempted at nothing, not even at a
and the law on which it is based. The proximity at simple summation of facts which could easily be done. Its
least of the annexed statement should suggest that inadequacy speaks for itself.
such an examination has been undertaken. It is, of
We cannot even consider or affirm said RTC decision as a
course, also understood that the decision being
memorandum decision because it failed to comply with
adopted should, to begin with, comply with the measures of validity laid down in Francisco v. Permskul.
Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution as
It merely affirmed in toto the MeTC decision without
no amount of incorporation or adoption will saying more. A decision or resolution, especially one
rectify its violation.
resolving an appeal, should directly meet the issues for
The Court finds it necessary to emphasize that resolution; otherwise, the appeal would be pointless.
memorandum decisions should be sparingly used
We, therefore, reiterate our admonition in Nicos Industrial
lest it become an addictive excuse for judicial sloth.
Corporation v. Court of Appeals (206 SCRA 127, 131,
It is an additional condition for the validity that
February 11, 1992), in that while we conceded that brevity
this kind of decision may be resorted to only in
in the writing of decisions is an admirable trait, it should
cases where the facts are in the main accepted by
both parties and easily determinable by the judge, not and cannot be substituted for substance; and again in
and there are no doctrinal complications involved Francisco v. Permskul, where we cautioned that expediency
that will require an extended discussion of the laws alone, no matter how compelling, cannot excuse non-
involved. The memorandum decision may be compliance with the constitutional requirements.
employed in simple litigations only, such as ordinary This is not to discourage the lower courts to write
collections cases, where the appeal is obviously abbreviated and concise decisions, but never at the expense
groundless and deserves no more than the time of scholarly analysis, and more significantly, of justice and
needed to dismiss it. xxx
2002] THE FOUR Cs OF EFFECTIVE 37 38 THE PHILJA JUDICIAL JOURNAL [VOL. 4:14
DECISION-WRITING

fair play, lest the fears expressed by Justice Jose Y. Feria as life, liberty or property of his fellowmen, the judge must
the ponente in Romero v. Court of Appeals (147 SCRA ultimately depend on the power of reason for sustained
183, January 8, 1987) come true, i.e., if an appellate court public confidence in the justness of his decision.
failed to provide the appeal the attention it rightfully Thus, the Court has struck down as void those decisions
deserved, said court deprived the appellant of due process of lower courts, and even of the Court of Appeals, whose
since he was not accorded a fair opportunity to be heard careless disregard of the constitutional behest exposed their
and a responsible magistrate. This situation becomes more sometimes cavalier attitude not only to their magisterial
ominous in criminal cases, as in this case, where not only
responsibilities, but likewise to their avowed fealty to the
property rights are at stake, but also the liberty, if not the
Constitution.
life, of a human being.
Thus, we nullified or deemed to have failed to comply
Faithful adherence to the requirements of Section 14, with Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution, a
Article VIII of the Constitution is indisputably a decision, resolution or order which contained no analysis
paramount component of due process and fair play. It is of the evidence of the parties nor reference to any legal
likewise demanded by the due process clause of the basis in reaching its conclusions; contained nothing more
Constitution. The parties to a litigation should be informed than a summary of the testimonies of the witnesses of both
of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual parties; convicted the accused of libel, but failed to cite
and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. any legal authority or principle to support conclusion that
The court cannot simply say that judgment is rendered in the letter in question was libelous; consisted merely of one
favor of X and against Y, and just leave it at that without (1) paragraph with mostly sweeping generalizations and
any justification whatsoever for its action. The losing party failed to support its conclusion of parricide; consisted of
is entitled to know why he lost, so that he may appeal to five (5) pages, three (3) pages of which were quotations
the higher court if permitted, should he believe that the from the labor arbiter’s decision, including the dispositive
decision should be reversed. A decision that does not clearly portion and barely a page (two [2] short paragraphs of
and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is two [2] sentences each) of its own discussion or reasonings;
based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached, was merely based on the findings of another court sans
and is precisely prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable transcript of stenographic notes; or failed to explain the
to pinpoint the possible errors of the court for review by factual and legal bases for the award of moral damages.
a higher tribunal. More than that, the requirement is an (Citations omitted)
assurance to the parties that, in reaching judgment, the judge
did so through the processes of legal reasoning. It is, thus, Case 2: People vv.. Bug
People arin
Bugarin
a safeguard against the impetuosity of the judge, preventing
him from deciding ipse dixit. Vouchsafed neither the sword
In People v. Bugarin (339 Phil 570, 579-580, June 13, 1997),
nor the purse by the Constitution, but nonetheless vested the Court explained:
with the sovereign prerogative of passing judgment on the The requirement that the decisions of courts must be in
writing and that they must set forth clearly and distinctly
2002] THE FOUR Cs OF EFFECTIVE 39 40 THE PHILJA JUDICIAL JOURNAL [VOL. 4:14
DECISION-WRITING

the facts and the law on which they are based serves many From the evidence on record, the Court believes
functions. It is intended, among other things, to inform and so holds that the prosecution has satisfactorily
the parties of the reason or reasons for the decisions so proved the accused [guilty] beyond reasonable
that if any of them appeals, he can point out to the doubt. Prosecution’s witnesses testified in a
appellate court the finding of facts or the rulings on points straightforward manner.
of law with which he disagrees. More than that, the
requirement is an assurance to the parties that, in reaching Considering the circumstances immediately prior
judgment, the judge did so through the processes of legal to the commission of the crime, and the manner
reasoning. It is, thus, a safeguard against the impetuosity of the same was committed, the Court believes that
the judge, preventing him from deciding by ipse dixit. the aggravating circumstances of evidence,
Vouchsafed neither the sword nor the purse by the premeditation and abuse of superior strength, as
Constitution, but nonetheless vested with the sovereign well as availment of means to prevent the deceased
prerogative of passing judgment on the life, liberty or from defending himself, were sufficiently
property of his fellowmen, the judge must ultimately established. The severality, location and severity
depend on the power of reason for sustained public of the injuries inflicted, as well as their nature,
confidence in the justness of his decision. proved that there were more than one assailant.
Murder should have been the proper offense
Case 3: Madrid vv.. Cour
Courtt of A ppeals
Appeals charged. However, we can only convict the accused
of homicide.
In Madrid v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 130683, May 31,
2000), the Court elaborated: The decision does not indicate what the trial court found
in the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses to consider
First. The trial court’s decision, for all its length – twenty-
the same “straightforward” when, as will presently be shown,
three (23) pages – contains no analysis of the evidence of
they are in fact contradictory and confused. Nor does the
the parties nor reference to any legal basis in reaching its
conclusion. It contains nothing more than a summary of decision contain any justification for the appreciation of
the testimonies of the witnesses of both parties. The only aggravating circumstances against the accused, much less some
discussion of the evidence is to be found in the following basis for finding conspiracy among them.
paragraphs: In view of the weight given to its assessment of a witness’
Their testimony convinced the Court. On the credibility on appeal, the trial court should exert effort to
other hand, accused’s evidence bears the indicia of ensure that its decisions present a comprehensive analysis or
fabrication. Defense witnesses from their demeanor, account of the factual and legal findings which would
manner of testifying and evasive answers were far substantially address the issues raised by the parties.
from credible.
2002] THE FOUR Cs OF EFFECTIVE 41 42 THE PHILJA JUDICIAL JOURNAL [VOL. 4:14
DECISION-WRITING

D. Rule 16, Section 3, Rules of Cour

Rules Courtt render decisions that are totally bereft of factual and
(Motion to Dismiss) legal bases.” (De Vera v. Dames, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1455,
July 13, 1999)
SEC. 3. Resolution of motion – After the hearing, the
court may dismiss the action or claim, deny the motion, or
F . Par ts of a Trial Cour
arts Courtt Decision
order the amendment of the pleading.
The court shall not defer the resolution of the motion for 1. Caption and Title
the reason that the ground relied upon is not indubitable.
a. Caption
In every case, the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly
the reasons therefor. i. Name of the court
ii. Title of the action
Case 1: Pef
Pefianco vv.. Moral
efianco
iii. Docket number
In Pefianco v. Moral (G.R. L-132248, January 19, 2000), the
b. Title
Court held:
i. Names of all parties and their respective participation
Clearly, the above rule [Rule 16, Sec. 3] proscribes the
common practice of perfunctorily denying motions to
dismiss ‘for lack of merit.’ Such cavalier disposition often 2. Introduction (Optional)
creates difficulty and misunderstanding on the part of the
aggrieved party in taking recourse therefrom and likewise 3. Statement of the Case
on the higher court called upon to resolve the issue, usually a. Civil Cases
on certiorari.
i. Collection
E. Sanctions ffor
or FFailur
ailur
ailuree to FFollo
ollow Le
ollow Leggal Requir
Requir ements
equirements ii. Ejectment
(R
(Reeversal of Decision and P ossib
Possib le Administrati
ossible Administrativve
Liabilities) iii. Quieting of title

Judges cannot be disciplined for every erroneous order iv. Foreclosure of mortgage, etc.
or decision rendered in the absence of a clear showing of b. Criminal Cases
ill motive, malice or bad faith. This, however, is not a
license for them to be negligent or abusive in performing i. Specific charge
their adjudicatory prerogatives. The absence of bad faith ii. Accusatory portion of the information
or malice will not totally exculpate them from charges
of incompetence and ignorance of the law when they
2002] THE FOUR Cs OF EFFECTIVE 43 44 THE PHILJA JUDICIAL JOURNAL [VOL. 4:14
DECISION-WRITING

iii. Plea of the accused b. Synthesis Method

iv. Sometimes the conduct of preliminary investigation According to his best light, the judge summarizes the factual
This Court is disturbed by the fact that the decision of theory of the plaintiff or prosecution, and then that of the
the trial court now subject of automatic review failed to defendant or defense.
include a statement of facts or at least a summary of the
evidence presented by the prosecution to prove the guilt c. Subjective Method
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The information The judge simply narrates what he accepts as his own version,
upon which the accused was arraigned is [neither] cited
without explaining what the parties’ versions are.
nor quoted in the trial court’s decision, which failed to
state distinctly the acts [constituting the crime] allegedly
committed by the accused. The trial court simply stated d. Combination of the Objective and
that the accused is guilty of rape of his own daughter and Subjective Methods
that the evidence for the prosecution is not controverted The judge reports the testimony of each witness as in the
by the accused without mentioning the evidence the first type and then makes his own version as he sees fit.
prosecution presented in court. x x x The trial judge is
hereby admonished for her failure to comply with the Rules
5. Statement of the Issues
regarding the form and contents of judgments. (People v.
Dumaguing, G.R. No. 135516, September 20, 2000)
6. Cour t’
t’ss R
Court’ uling
Ruling
4. Findings of Facts Application of law and jurisprudence to the facts, and
explanation for the conclusions reached. Each issue, as a rule, must
Each case has its own flesh and blood and cannot be decided
be taken up and disposed of.
simply on the basis of isolated clinical classroom principles.
(Philippines Today v. NLRC, G.R. No. 112962, January 30, 1997;
7. Dispositi
Dispositivve Por
Por tion or Disposition
ortion
267 SCRA 202, 228.)
a. In criminal cases, the disposition should include:
The methods of reporting facts are:
i. Finding of innocence or guilt
a. Objecti
Objectivve or R
Ree por torial Method
portorial ii. Specific crime
Usually done by summarizing, without comment, the iii. Penalty (with special attention to the indeterminate
testimony of each witness, and the contents of each sentence law)
exhibit.
iv. Participation of the accused
2002] THE FOUR Cs OF EFFECTIVE 45 46 THE PHILJA JUDICIAL JOURNAL [VOL. 4:14
DECISION-WRITING

v. Qualifying, aggravating and mitigating circumstances A mastery of the various branches of law is essential.
Otherwise, judges who show patent or gross ignorance of the law
vi. Civil liabilities costs
and settled jurisprudence would be subject to disciplinary action.
b. In civil cases, the disposition should include: However, decisions must be correct not only in substance,
but also in form. They must be written in correct English or
i. Whether complaint or petition is granted or denied
Filipino.
ii. Specific relief granted
iii. Costs A. Some Guidelines in Cor
Corrrect Le
Leggal Writing

According to Justice Reynato S. Puno, a disposition must be 1. Be Grammatical.

complete. He gives the following test of completeness:
Learn and use correct grammar, spelling, tenses, numbers, gender.
First, the parties know their rights and obligations. Second, What are the correct spellings of “pre-trial,” “guesstimate,” and
the parties should know how to execute the decision under
“percent”?
alternative contingencies. Third, there should be no need
for further proceedings. Fourth, it terminates the case by
according the proper relief. The ‘proper relief ’ usually
2. Be Clear and Precise.
depends upon what the parties asked for. It may be merely Choose appropriate words that convey the correct nuance or shade
declaratory of rights, or it may command performance of of meaning.
positive prestations, or orders the party to abstain from
specific acts. And lastly, it must adjudicate costs. It is very embarrassing when a judge [or hearing officer] is
asked by the parties to explain what he meant in his opinion
or what he ordered in the dispositive part of his decision.
II. C ORRECTNESS (Justice Isagani A. Cruz and Justice Camilo D. Quiason,
Correct Choice of Words, 1998 ed., p. iv.)
This means that the decision must conform to the law and
settled jurisprudence. Scholarship and research are the Words are like chameleons which reflect the color of their
landmarks of a great decision. Citations of authorities, environment. (Judge Learned Hand)
especially those involving novel or difficult issues, are always Examples:
desirable.
Remember that your audience is not just the parties or their a. “One after the other, the four accused attacked the
lawyers, but also the appellate court which may review your victim alternately.”
decisions and opinions. Use “successively” instead of “alternately.” Note the
difference.
2002] THE FOUR Cs OF EFFECTIVE 47 48 THE PHILJA JUDICIAL JOURNAL [VOL. 4:14
DECISION-WRITING

b. “Petitioner alleges that the applied land was located in a. Vague:

Barangay Mambogan.” “It is clear from the testimony of the private complainant
Better: that appellant used force and intimidation.”
“Petitioner alleges that the land he applied for was located Specific:
in Barangay Mambogan.” “It is clear from the testimony of the private complainant
that after the appellant had forcibly embraced her, he
c. “ The witness only testified on one matter.” threatened to break her head if she shouted; thereafter,
Better: he strangled her with one hand and pointed a knife at her
“ The witness testified on only one matter.” neck with the other.”

d. “WHEREFORE, finding no merit in the instant b. The main clause at the end of a sentence tends to catch
complaint, the same is hereby DISMISSED.” the most attention. Reserve it for points to be emphasized.
Next to the end of the sentence, the beginning attracts
Who found no merit? The participial phrase is dangling, attention.
a very common error.
Awkward:
Correct:
“The rule that no statute, decree, ordinance, regulation
“WHEREFORE, finding no merit, the court hereby or policy shall be given retroactive effect, unless explicitly
DISMISSES the Petition.” stated so, is basic.”
Or: Better:
“WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED “Basic is the rule that no statute, decree, ordinance,
for lack of merit.” regulation or policy shall be given retroactive effect, unless
explicitly stated so.”
e. “An accused is charged with a crime and convicted of
it.” c. To create effect, vary sentence length and construction in
a paragraph. Use long sentences to describe complicated
“Treachery makes him liable for murder.”
matters, to give dramatic narration, or to convey tedium
or heaviness. On the other hand, use a short sentence to
3. Use Specif ic Wor
Specific ds that ar
ords aree Well-Positioned.
ell-Positioned. stress an important point. Examples:
Vague generalities tend to say nothing. In fact, they may even “This is not an accurate statement of a legal principle. It
confuse the reader. confuses venue with jurisdiction, but venue has nothing
2002] THE FOUR Cs OF EFFECTIVE 49 50 THE PHILJA JUDICIAL JOURNAL [VOL. 4:14
DECISION-WRITING

to do with jurisdiction, except in criminal actions. This is 2. Minimize the use of highfalutin language and foreign words
fundamental.” and phrases. However, used sparingly in a proper way and in
“Petitioner is in error. The public respondent did not the proper context, they add dignity and majesty to a decision.
adopt in toto the aforequoted portion of the arbiter’s Used in excess, they expose not erudition, but exhibitionism
decision.” and amateurism. Thin, indeed, is the line between profundity
and pomposity.
III. C LARITY
B. Be Consistent in Tone, Tense, Wor ds, Imag
ords, es, and
Images,
A decision should be easy to read and to understand. the Logical and Grammatical P arallelism of Wor
Parallelism ds
ords
or Gr oups of Wor
Groups ds.
ords.
A. Be Simple .
1. While it is desirable to avoid monotony of words, do not
Excessive ornateness, unorthodoxy, multisyllabic words, and
change a word for the sake of changing it. If one must repeat,
obscure spelling and diction call attention to themselves, not to
then repeat a word or phrase that has a unique legal
the message. Glitter is noveau riche, but simplicity is elegance.
characterization, like “laches,” “renvoi” or treachery.
Simplicity does not mean lack of force or color. It means
condensing many words into a few meaningful ones that deliver
2. Strive for logical and grammatical parallelism.
the desired message.
Not parallel:
1. Avoid wordiness and vacillation. Minimize phrases like it is “Respondent challenges the credibility of the witnesses who,
said that, it would seem that, it might be said that. he says, are all bosom friends of the complainant, and that
Wordy: their testimonies contradict one another.”
“In common or ordinary parlance, and its ordinary Parallel:
signification, the term ‘shall’ is a word of command, one which “Respondent challenges the credibility of the witnesses because
has always or which must be given a compulsory meaning as they are all the complainant’s bosom friends, and because their
denoting obligation. It has a peremptory meaning, and it is testimonies contradict one another.”
generally known as peremptory or mandatory.”
Simple: 3. Avoid using mixed metaphors and clashing images.
“The word “shall” denotes an imperative and indicates the Mixed metaphors:
mandatory character of a law.” “The price was the carrot dangling in front of the horse.”
2002] THE FOUR Cs OF EFFECTIVE 51 52 THE PHILJA JUDICIAL JOURNAL [VOL. 4:14
DECISION-WRITING

Clashing images: V. F IN AL W ORD

INAL

“He admitted having killed the deceased, but he set up self-

defense.” For the sake of variety, cadence and emphasis, some of these
foregoing rules may be set aside once in a while. Note these famous
NOTE: In general, abbreviations, capitalization, italicization, quotations:
and, to a large degree, punctuation are matters of style, not
of right and wrong. • “To be or not to be – that is the question.”
• “Four score and seven years ago.”
C. Remember to Use in General:
• “Only in the Philippines!”
1. Topics and titles for distinct ideas, headings and subheadings. If one has a way with words – a sense of rhythm – one may
2. Numbers or letters for enumerations and succession of ideas. get away with the unconventional. Some call it “artsy-craftsy,” or
“literary license,” or even “legal craftsmanship.”
3. Transition words and phrases.
But keep in mind T.S. Eliot’s words: “It is not wise to violate
4. Proper punctuation marks. the rules, until you know how to observe them.”
5. Bold types or italics to stress words and phrases.

IV
IV.. C ONCISENESS

Question: How long should a decision be?

Answer: It depends on the facts and the issues involved.
The decision of the trial court is exceedingly long, without
any effort to trim the fat and keep it lean. Judges are not
stenographers transcribing the testimony of the witnesses
word for word. Judges must know how to synthesize, to
summarize, to simplify. Their failure to do is one of the
main reasons for the delay in the administration of justice.
It also explains the despair of the public over the foot-
dragging of many courts and their inability to get to the
point and to get there fast. (People v. Amondina, 220
SCRA 6, 7, March 17, 1993)