Parole evidence

I was reading page 50 of The Insurance Code of the Philippines Annotated, 2010 Edition by De Leon when I saw this:

I learned about parol evidence in first year law. So this must be a minor typo by De Leon. But it was there again on the next page:

So I checked the case law referred to by the book which is American Home Assurance Company vs. Tantuco Enterprises, GR 138941, October 8, 2001. Indeed the term used is parole evidence. A search through the Philippine Report Online brings up 40 decisions using the term parole evidence.

However, it seems parol evidence is still the prevalent usage in Philippine jurisprudence.

How about in American jurisprudence? A quick search through the Chan Roble website reveals no usage of "parole evidence".  In fact, according to Bess Hambleton in her Legal Solutions Blog  "parole"  is  wrong spelling when used with "evidence":

So why is it that 40 or more Supreme Court decisions use "parole evidence" instead of "parol evidence?"

Could it be that the ponentes felt awkward using parol because parol conjures the image of something else among Filipinos [as in here]?

Seriously, however, there is a basis for the use of parole in Philippine jurisprudence. Parol evidence, as we learned, refers to oral evidence. In first year law I used to ask myself why the roundabout way from parol to oral; why not poral evidence?

The world parole is actually related to oral. Parole comes from French and refers to spoken words. See here. Therefore, the usage is not reversible error on the part of the ponentes.

The price of meal

From page 42 of the Insurance Code of the Philippines Annotated, 2010 Edition by De Leon:

State witness or state's witness

Just came back from a twice-postponed trip with the family to Bohol which is why there was no posting yesterday.

In today's issue of the Philippine Inquirer, former Chief Justice Panganiban had a postscript to his article (see here) where he took pains to explain why in a previous article he used state's witness instead of the usual state witness.

It appears that he is a victim of editorial scissors (cut and paste). For his every use of state witness, the Inquirer editor would substitute state's witness. Victim I say because CJ Panganiban seems to waver when he said that readers may choose between state witness which is legal and state's witness which is grammatical.

This is the same position espoused by Prof. Randy David in this article.

Actually, state witness is both legal and grammatical. The word state is a noun, an adjective, or a verb depending on its usage. In "state witness" state is used as an adjective.

Here's an example from Google:

adjective

1. 1.

   of, provided by, or concerned with the civil government of a country.

   "the future of state education"

A search through U.S. jurisprudence will also show that "state witness" is the accepted way of using the term. Other jurisdictions may use "state's witness."

Shipper liable as common carrier

From page 16 of Essentials of Transportation and Public Utilities Law, 2011 Edition  by Timoteo B. Aquino and Ramon Paul L. Hernando:

Saturday typos, 12 April 2014

From Essentials of Transportation and Public Utilities Law, 2011 Edition  by Timoteo B. Aquino and Ramon Paul L. Hernando:

Page 41 -

Page 42 -

Insurance for ill risks

There is an all-risk and specified-risk insurance. De Leon seems to say that there is also an ill-risk insurance.

From page 38 of The Insurance Code of the Philippines, Annotated, 2010 Edition:

Saturday typo

From page 13 of De Leon's The Insurance Code of the Philippines, Annotated, 2010 Edition: