Saturday typos, 30 July 2016

From the Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. 1 by Arturo M. Tolentino:

Page 29,

Page 30,

Page 46,

Sunday conundrum, 24 July 2016

From the Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Vol. I, 2013 Edition by Edgardo L. Paras:

Are some rights public and may, therefore, be privatized? Page 195.

Who are the "deeds" that can vote? Page 270.

Now this reminds me of a favorite story of Atty. Pat Acabodillo, one of my professors in Land Titles and Deeds. Somebody went to his office to ask for a certificate of death. He happened to be the Register of Deeds of Mandaue City at the time.

Saturday typos, 23 July 2016

From The Labor Code, With Comments and Cases, Vol. I, 2010 Edition  by C.A. Azucena Jr.:

Page 89,

 

Page 91,

Page 96,

Sunday misnomer, 17 July 2016

From the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Annotated, 2013 Edition by Manuel R. Pamaran:

What is a statue of limitation? Page 39,

The Rules of Court say that the judge must propound searching questions before issuing a search warrant. What about investigating questions? Are they for investigation warrants? Page 219,

Saturday typos, 16 July 2016

From the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Annotated, 2012 Edition  by Manuel R. Pamaran:


Page 92,

Page 128,

Saturday typos, 9 July 2016

From The Secrets of Income Taxation, Volume I, 2013 Edition by Josephrally L. Chavez, Jr.:

Page 5,

Page 20,

Page 22,

Sufficient vs efficient

On pages 285 and 286 of the textbook by Florenz D. Regalado  Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II, Eleventh Edition we find this passage:

Something seems to be not quite right with the underlined words (underlining mine). Since this is about the Ombudsman a  check with the Ombudsman Act may pinpoint what seems to be the problem.

Section 15(1) of the Act (RA 6770) says:

(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of his primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases; 

Instead of efficient, Regalado uses sufficient. To retrace the trail of the "offending" word we need to refer to the decision quoted by Regalado.

It turned out that in quoting Santiago vs. Vasquez Regalado was quoting himself. Here's the particular sentence from Santiago which he penned:

The Ombudsman may himself dismiss the complaint in the first instance if in his judgment the acts or omissions complained of are not illegal, unjust, improper or sufficient. 

Regalado did use the word sufficient in his decision. But note that in the textbook he used are sufficient.  Without the are the meaning of the phrase will be confusing.

As used in the decision, the phrase "not illegal, unjust, improper or sufficient" would be equivalent to "legal, just, proper or insufficient." It appears that Regalado corrected himself in his textbook by inserting the are.

Just the same, I think Regalado misequated "efficient" with "sufficient."

Saturday typos, 2 July 2016

Be careful with those Latin phrases.

Here's from page 149 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Vol. I, 2013 Edition by Edgardo L. Paras.

For the first Latin phrase, see here for the correct phrasing.

And here for the second phrase.