A.M. No.

10-7-17-SC February 8, 2011

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

PER CURIAM:

Petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya, et al., all members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, seek reconsideration of the
decision of the Court dated October 12, 2010 that dismissed their charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials,
and gross neglect against Justice Mariano Del Castillo in connection with the decision he wrote for the Court in G.R.
No. 162230, entitled Vinuya v. Romulo.

Mainly, petitioners claim that the Court has by its decision legalized or approved of the commission of plagiarism in
the Philippines.

Issue:

Whether Justice Mariano del Castillo committed plagiarism in deciding the case of Vinuya vs. Romulo.

Ruling:

No. To paraphrase Bast and Samuels, while the academic publishing model is based on the originality of
the writer’s thesis, the judicial system is based on the doctrine of stare decisis, which encourages courts to cite
historical legal data, precedents, and related studies in their decisions. The judge is not expected to produce
original scholarship in every respect. The strength of a decision lies in the soundness and general acceptance of the
precedents and long held legal opinions it draws from.

Decisions of courts are not written to earn merit, accolade, or prize as an original piece of work or art.
Deciding disputes is a service rendered by the government for the public good. The interest of society in written
decisions is not that they are originally crafted but that they are fair and correct in the context of the particular
disputes involved. Justice, not originality, form, and style, is the object of every decision of a court of law.

There is a basic reason for individual judges of whatever level of courts, including the Supreme Court, not
to use original or unique language when reinstating the laws involved in the cases they decide. Their duty is to apply
the laws as these are written. But laws include, under the doctrine of stare decisis, judicial interpretations of
such laws as are applied to specific situations. Under this doctrine, Courts are "to stand by precedent and not
to disturb settled point." Once the Court has "laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts,
it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same; regardless of
whether the parties or property are the same."

The tendency to copy in law is readily explicable. In law accuracy of words is everything. Legal disputes
often centre round the way in which obligations have been expressed in legal documents and how the facts of the
real world fit the meaning of the words in which the obligation is contained. This, in conjunction with the risk-
aversion of lawyers means that refuge will often be sought in articulations that have been tried and tested. In a sense
therefore the community of lawyers have together contributed to this body of knowledge, language, and expression
which is common property and may be utilized, developed and bettered by anyone.
 This is not to say that the magistrates of our courts are mere copycats. They are not. Their decisions analyze
the often-conflicting facts of each case and sort out the relevant from the irrelevant. They identify and formulate the
issue or issues that need to be resolved and evaluate each of the laws, rulings, principles, or authorities that the
parties to the case invoke.

In Vinuya, Justice Del Castillo examined and summarized the facts as seen by the opposing sides in a
way that no one has ever done. He identified and formulated the core of the issues that the parties raised. And
when he had done this, he discussed the state of the law relevant to their resolution. It was here that he drew
materials from various sources, including the three foreign authors cited in the charges against him. He compared
the divergent views these present as they developed in history. He then explained why the Court must reject some
views in light of the peculiar facts of the case and applied those that suit such facts. Finally, he drew from his
discussions of the facts and the law the right solution to the dispute in the case. On the whole, his work was
original. He had but done an honest work.

The Court will not, therefore, consistent with established practice in the Philippines and elsewhere, dare
permit the filing of actions to annul the decisions promulgated by its judges or expose them to charges of plagiarism
for honest work done.