ISABELITA C. VINUYA et. al. vs.

THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

ALBERTO G. ROMULO, G.R. No. 162230 in relation to A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC March 8,
2011, April 28, 2010
DEL CASTILLO, J.

FACTS:
A complaint for Damages was filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San
Mateo, Rizal. Respondent Atty. Flores appeared as counsel for the defendant.
He filed his Pre-Trial Brief without proof of MCLE compliance hence; it was
expunged from the records without prejudice to the filing of another Pre-Trial
Brief containing the required MCLE compliance. The preliminary conference was
reset several times for failure of respondent to appear and submit his Pre-Trial
Brief indicating thereon his MCLE compliance. The court a quo gave respondent
last chance to submit his Pre-Trial Brief with stern warning that failure to do so
shall be considered a waiver on his part. Respondent later filed his Pre-Trial Brief
bearing an MCLE number which was merely superimposed without indicating the
date and place of compliance. During the preliminary conference, respondent
manifested that he will submit proof of compliance of his MCLE on the following
day. The Investigating Judge found Atty. Flores to have failed to give due respect
to the court by failing to obey court orders, by failing to submit proof of his
compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirement,
and for using intemperate language in his pleadings. The Investigating Judge
recommended that Atty. Flores be suspended from the practice of law for one
A complaint for Damages was filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San
Mateo, Rizal. Respondent Atty. Flores appeared as counsel for the defendant.
He filed his Pre-Trial Brief without proof of MCLE compliance hence; it was
expunged from the records without prejudice to the filing of another Pre-Trial
Brief containing the required MCLE compliance. The preliminary conference was
reset several times for failure of respondent to appear and submit his Pre-Trial
Brief indicating thereon his MCLE compliance. The court a quo gave respondent
last chance to submit his Pre-Trial Brief with stern warning that failure to do so
shall be considered a waiver on his part. Respondent later filed his Pre-Trial Brief
bearing an MCLE number which was merely superimposed without indicating the
date and place of compliance. During the preliminary conference, respondent
manifested that he will submit proof of compliance of his MCLE on the following
day. The Investigating Judge found Atty. Flores to have failed to give due respect
to the court by failing to obey court orders, by failing to submit proof of his
compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirement,
and for using intemperate language in his pleadings. The Investigating Judge
recommended that Atty. Flores be suspended from the practice of law for one
A complaint for Damages was filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San
Mateo, Rizal. Respondent Atty. Flores appeared as counsel for the defendant.
He filed his Pre-Trial Brief without proof of MCLE compliance hence; it was
expunged from the records without prejudice to the filing of another Pre-Trial
Brief containing the required MCLE compliance. The preliminary conference was
reset several times for failure of respondent to appear and submit his Pre-Trial
Brief indicating thereon his MCLE compliance. The court a quo gave respondent
last chance to submit his Pre-Trial Brief with stern warning that failure to do so
shall be considered a waiver on his part. Respondent later filed his Pre-Trial Brief
bearing an MCLE number which was merely superimposed without indicating the
date and place of compliance. During the preliminary conference, respondent
manifested that he will submit proof of compliance of his MCLE on the following
day. The Investigating Judge found Atty. Flores to have failed to give due respect
to the court by failing to obey court orders, by failing to submit proof of his
compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirement,
and for using intemperate language in his pleadings. The Investigating Judge
recommended that Atty. Flores be suspended from the practice of law for one
A complaint for Damages was filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San
Mateo, Rizal. Respondent Atty. Flores appeared as counsel for the defendant.
He filed his Pre-Trial Brief without proof of MCLE compliance hence; it was
expunged from the records without prejudice to the filing of another Pre-Trial
Brief containing the required MCLE compliance. The preliminary conference was
reset several times for failure of respondent to appear and submit his Pre-Trial
Brief indicating thereon his MCLE compliance. The court a quo gave respondent
last chance to submit his Pre-Trial Brief with stern warning that failure to do so
shall be considered a waiver on his part. Respondent later filed his Pre-Trial Brief
bearing an MCLE number which was merely superimposed without indicating the
date and place of compliance. During the preliminary conference, respondent
manifested that he will submit proof of compliance of his MCLE on the following
day. The Investigating Judge found Atty. Flores to have failed to give due respect
to the court by failing to obey court orders, by failing to submit proof of his
compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirement,
and for using intemperate language in his pleadings. The Investigating Judge
recommended that Atty. Flores be suspended from the practice of law for one
A complaint for Damages was filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San
Mateo, Rizal. Respondent Atty. Flores appeared as counsel for the defendant.
He filed his Pre-Trial Brief without proof of MCLE compliance hence; it was
expunged from the records without prejudice to the filing of another Pre-Trial
Brief containing the required MCLE compliance. The preliminary conference was
reset several times for failure of respondent to appear and submit his Pre-Trial
Brief indicating thereon his MCLE compliance. The court a quo gave respondent
last chance to submit his Pre-Trial Brief with stern warning that failure to do so
shall be considered a waiver on his part. Respondent later filed his Pre-Trial Brief
bearing an MCLE number which was merely superimposed without indicating the
date and place of compliance. During the preliminary conference, respondent
manifested that he will submit proof of compliance of his MCLE on the following
day. The Investigating Judge found Atty. Flores to have failed to give due respect
to the court by failing to obey court orders, by failing to submit proof of his
compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirement,
and for using intemperate language in his pleadings. The Investigating Judge
recommended that Atty. Flores be suspended from the practice of law for one

- Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a non-stock, non-profit organization
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, established for the purpose of
providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese military forces in the Philippines during
the Second World War.
- On
- February 7, 1989, after policemen and people living nearby, rescued Karen, Greg
Bartelli was
- arrested and detained at the Makati Municipal Jail. The policemen recovered from
Bartelli the
 - following items: 1.) Dollar Check No. 368, Control No. 021000678-1166111303,
US 3,903.20; 2.)
- COCOBANK Bank Book No. 104-108758-8 (Peso Acct.); 3.) Dollar Account —
China Banking
- Corp., US$/A#54105028-2; 4.) ID-122-30-8877; 5.) Philippine Money (P234.00) cash;
6.) Door Keys 6
- pieces; 7.) Stuffed Doll (Teddy Bear) used in seducing the complainant.
-
- On February 16, 1989, Makati Investigating Fiscal Edwin G. Condaya filed against
- On
- February 7, 1989, after policemen and people living nearby, rescued Karen, Greg
Bartelli was
- arrested and detained at the Makati Municipal Jail. The policemen recovered from
Bartelli the
- following items: 1.) Dollar Check No. 368, Control No. 021000678-1166111303,
US 3,903.20; 2.)
- COCOBANK Bank Book No. 104-108758-8 (Peso Acct.); 3.) Dollar Account —
China Banking
- Corp., US$/A#54105028-2; 4.) ID-122-30-8877; 5.) Philippine Money (P234.00) cash;
6.) Door Keys 6
- pieces; 7.) Stuffed Doll (Teddy Bear) used in seducing the complainant.
-
- On February 16, 1989, Makati Investigating Fiscal Edwin G. Condaya filed against
- Petitioners claim that since 1998, they have approached the Executive Department
through the DOJ, DFA, and OSG, requesting assistance in filing a claim against the
Japanese officials and military officers who ordered the establishment of the "comfort
women" stations in the Philippines. However, officials of the Executive Department
declined to assist the petitioners, and took the position that the individual claims of the
comfort women for compensation had already been fully satisfied by Japan’s
compliance with the Peace Treaty between the Philippines and Japan.
- Petition dismissed by the SC; not within their jurisdiction
- Counsel for the Malaya Lolas, Attys. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr. (Atty. Roque) and Romel
Regalado Bagares (Atty. Bagares), alleges plagiarism against Justice Mariano C. Del
Castillo, the ponencia of the case. (“In the first place, it is highly improper for this
honorable court’s judgment of April 28, 2010 to plagiarize at least three sources – an
article published in 2009 in the yale law journal of international law, a book published by
the Cambridge University press in 2005 and an article published in 2006 in the case
western reserve journal of international law – and make it appear that these sources
support the judgment’s arguments for dismissing the instant petition when in truth, the
plagiarized sources even make a strong case for the petition’s claims.”)

ISSUE:

Whether the ponencia’s actions constitute violations of Canons 10

RULING:

In common parlance, ‘plagiarism’ is the appropriation and misrepresentation of another

person’s work as one’s own. In the field of writing, it is cheating at best, and stealing at worst.
It constitutes a taking of someone else’s ideas and expressions, including all the effort and
creativity that went into committing such ideas and expressions into writing, and then making
it appear that such ideas and expressions were originally created by the taker. It is dishonesty,
pure and simple. A judicial system that allows plagiarism in any form is one that allows
dishonesty. Since all judicial decisions form part of the law of the land, to allow plagiarism in
the Supreme Court is to allow the production of laws by dishonest means. Evidently, this is a
complete perversion and falsification of the ends of justice.

A comparison of the Vinuya decision and the original source material shows that the
ponente merely copied select portions of other legal writers’ works and interspersed them into
the decision as if they were his own, original work. Under the circumstances, however, because
the Decision has been promulgated by the Court, the Decision now becomes the Court’s and no
longer just the ponente’s. Thus the Court also bears the responsibility for the Decision. In the
absence of any mention of the original writers’ names and the publications from which they
came, the thing speaks for itself.