You are on page 1of 2

Four Terms Fallacy

Cadalin vs. POEA’s Administration 238 SCRA 721 (1994)


On June 6, 1984, Bienvenido M. Cadalin, Rolando M. Amul and Donato B. Evangelista, in their own
behalf and on behalf of 728 other overseas contract workers (OCWs) instituted a class suit by filing an
"Amended Complaint" with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) for money
claims arising from their recruitment by AIBC and employment by BRII . BRII is a foreign corporation
with headquarters in Houston, Texas, and is engaged in construction; while AIBC is a domestic
corporation licensed as a service contractor to recruit, mobilize and deploy Filipino workers for overseas
employment on behalf of its foreign principals. The amended complaint principally sought the payment of
the unexpired portion of the employment contracts, which was terminated prematurely, and secondarily,
the payment of the interest of the earnings of the Travel and Reserved Fund, interest on all the unpaid
benefits; area wage and salary differential pay; fringe benefits; refund of SSS and premium not remitted
to the SSS; refund of withholding tax not remitted to the BIR; penalties for committing prohibited
practices; as well as the suspension of the license of AIBC and the accreditation of BIR

Fallacious Argument:

Major Premise: A foreign Procedural law will not be applied in the forum

Minor Premise: A forum will apply the foreign statute of limitation

Conclusion: Therefore a foreign statute is not a procedural law


The major and minor premise don’t have any relationship with each other therefore the conclusion is
deemed to be invalid. Both forums don’t have any connection with each other and that the forum in each
premise have different meanings.

Middle Term


G.R. No. 185389


Dr. Marlyn Valdez-Agbayani examined AAA and found that the victim had no laceration in her external
organ or her hymen. The former also testified that there were no spermatozoa in the victim’s vagina.
Despite these findings, Dr. Valdez-Agbayani clarified that if the hymen of a woman is elastic and so thin,
as in AAA’s case, laceration may not be present. As to the absence of spermatozoa in the victim’s
vagina, Dr. Valdez-Agbayani said that it was possible that the victim washed her genitalia, especially
since she was examined only after two days following the alleged rape incident.
Major Premise: Some Lacerations are signs of rape

Minor Premise: AAA did not have lacerations

Conclusion: Therefore, AAA was not raped.


The term “Laceration” was the not distributed in order to make the argument it a Categorical syllogism.
Also the argument of the petitioner was not valid because even if there is no laceration found in AAA,
treachery constitutes rape, therefore petitioner should be guilty on the crime of rape