Dean Ulan.

In the movie “And Justice for all” the act of lawyer Arthur (Al Pacino) violated a lot of code of
professional responsibility.

First is Canon 11. Which is the observance of respect due to the courts. The act of al pacino shouting in
the court and contemplating about the justice system and not respecting the Judge is violative of canon
11 of the CPR.

Also Al Pacino violated the attorney client relationship by not exerting his effort to protect his client’s
interest not to be found guilty of rape also the privacy of communications shall at all times be upheld

Canon 18 serve client with competence and diligence - is the duty to protect client’s interest
commences from his retainer until his effective release from the case, during that period he is expected
to take such reasonable steps and such ordinary care as his client’s interest may require.

Canon 19 was also violated by Al pacino. By knowing the fraud of his client. He did not need to scold the
court. Hence the proper remedy is 1. He must promptly call upon the client to rectify the same and
failing which, 2. He shall terminate their relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of
Court.

Also alpacino violate the privileged communication. And he can be charged by contempt of court.

No the statement by AL pacino is not admissible

Can file again for new trial.

Atty.Sarah

In the matter of the charges of plagiarism, etc., against

Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo. [A.M. No. 10-7-
17-SC]

FACTS:

On April 28, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a decision which dismissed a petition filed
by the Malaya Lolas Organization in the case of Vinuya vs Romulo. Atty. Herminio Harry
Roque Jr., counsel for Vinuya et al, questioned the said decision. He raised, among
others, that the ponente in said case, Justice Mariano del Castillo, plagiarized three
books when the honorable Justice “twisted the true intents” of these books to support
the assailed decision. These books were: a. A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by Evan
J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Yale Journal of International Law (2009); b. Breaking
the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark Ellis, Case Western Reserve
Journal of International Law (2006); and c. Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations by
Christian J. Tams, Cambridge University Press (2005).
As such, Justice del Castillo is guilty of plagiarism, misconduct, and at least inexcusable
negligence. Interestingly, even the three foreign authors mentioned above, stated that
their works were used inappropriately by Justice Del Castillo and that the assailed
decision is different from what their works advocated.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is plagiarism in the case at bar.

HELD: No. There is no plagiarism. Even if there is (as emphasized by the Supreme
Court in its ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Vinuya et al in 2011), the
rule on plagiarism cannot be applied to judicial bodies.

No Plagiarism

At its most basic, plagiarism means the theft of another persons language, thoughts, or
ideas. To plagiarize, as it is commonly understood according to Webster, is to take
(ideas, writings, etc.) from (another) and pass them off as ones own.The passing off of
the work of another as ones own is thus an indispensable element of plagiarism.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary: Plagiarism is the “deliberate and knowing

presentation of another person’s original ideas or creative expressions as one’s own.”

This cannot be the case here because as proved by evidence, in the original drafts of
the assailed decision, there was attribution to the three authors but due to errors made
by Justice del Castillo’s researcher, the attributions were inadvertently deleted. There is
therefore no intent by Justice del Castillo to take these foreign works as his own.

But in plagiarism, intent is immaterial.

On this note, the Supreme Court stated that in its past decisions, (i.e. U.P Board of
Regents vs CA, 313 SCRA 404), the Supreme Court never indicated that intent is not
material in plagiarism. To adopt a strict rule in applying plagiarism in all cases leaves no
room for errors. This would be very disadvantageous in cases, like this, where there are
reasonable and logical explanations.

On the foreign authors’ claim that their works were used inappropriately

According to the Supreme Court, the passages lifted from their works were merely used
as background facts in establishing the state on international law at various stages of its
development. The Supreme Court went on to state that the foreign authors’ works can
support conflicting theories. The Supreme Court also stated that since the attributions to
said authors were accidentally deleted, it is impossible to conclude that Justice del
Castillo twisted the advocacies that the works espouse.

No Misconduct

Justice del Castillo is not guilty of misconduct. The error here is in good faith. There was
no malice, fraud or corruption.

No Inexcusable Negligence (explanation of Justice Del Castillo)

The error of Justice del Castillo’s researcher is not reflective of his gross negligence.
The researcher is a highly competent one. The researcher earned scholarly degrees
here and abroad from reputable educational institutions. The researcher finished third in
her class and 4th in the bar examinations. Her error was merely due to the fact that the
software she used, Microsoft Word, lacked features to apprise her that certain important
portions of her drafts are being deleted inadvertently. Such error on her part cannot be
said to be constitutive of gross negligence nor can it be said that Justice del Castillo
was grossly negligent when he assigned the case to her. Further, assigning cases to
researchers has been a long standing practice to assist justices in drafting decisions. It
must be emphasized though that prior to assignment, the justice has already spelled out
his position to the researcher and in every sense, the justice is in control in the writing of
the draft.

With the advent of computers, however, as Justice Del Castillos researcher also
explained, most legal references, including the collection of decisions of the Court, are
found in electronic diskettes or in internet websites that offer virtual libraries of books
and articles. Here, as the researcher found items that were relevant to her assignment,
she downloaded or copied them into her main manuscript, a smorgasbord plate of
materials that she thought she might need.

She electronically cut relevant materials from books and journals in the Westlaw
website and pasted these to a main manuscript in her computer that contained the
issues for discussion in her proposed report to the Justice. She used the Microsoft Word
program. Later, after she decided on the general shape that her report would take, she
began pruning from that manuscript those materials that did not fit, changing the
positions in the general scheme of those that remained, and adding and deleting
paragraphs, sentences, and words as her continuing discussions with Justice Del
Castillo, her chief editor, demanded. Parenthetically, this is the standard scheme that
computer-literate court researchers use everyday in their work.

Hipos
vs
Bay
Facts:  
Two Informations for the crime of rape and one Information for the crime of
acts of lasciviousness were filed against petitioners Darryl Hipos et al., before
Branch 86 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Petitioners filed their
Joint Memorandum to Dismiss the Case[s] before the City Prosecutor. They
claimed that there was no probable cause to hold them liable for the crimes
charged. The Office of the City Prosecutor issued a Resolution on the
reinvestigation affirming the Informations.

2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Lamberto C. de Vera, treating the Joint

Memorandum to Dismiss the Case as an appeal of the 10 August 2004
Resolution, reversed the Resolution dated 10 August 2004, holding that there
was lack of probable cause. On the same date, the City Prosecutor filed a
Motion to Withdraw Informations before Judge Bay. Judge Bay denied the
Motion to Withdraw Informations in an Order of even date.

Issue:
Can the Supreme Court compel respondent judge bay to dismiss the case
through a writ of mandamus.

Held:
The rule is settled that once a criminal complaint or information is filed in
court, any disposition thereof, such as its dismissal or the conviction or
acquittal of the accused, rests in the sound discretion of the court. While the
prosecutor retains the discretion and control of the prosecution of the case, he
cannot impose his opinion on the court. The court is the best and sole judge
on what to do with the case. Accordingly, a motion to dismiss the case filed by
the prosecutor before or after the arraignment, or after a reinvestigation, or
upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records upon
reinvestigation, should be addressed to the discretion of the court. The action
of the court must not, however, impair the substantial rights of the accused or
the right of the People to due process of law.