Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC. March 8, 2011
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC. March 8, 2011
_______________
* EN BANC.
544
545
546
547
548
549
ignore them, but when law professors are the ones who appear to
have lost sight of the boundaries of fair commentary and worse,
would justify the same as an exercise of civil liberties, this Court
cannot remain silent for such silence would have a grave implication
on legal education in our country.·Speaking of the publicity this
case has generated, we likewise find no merit in the respondentsÊ
reliance on various news reports and commentaries in the print
media and the internet as proof that they are being unfairly
„singled out.‰ On the contrary, these same annexes to the Common
Compliance show that it is not enough for one to criticize the Court
to warrant the institution of disciplinary or contempt action. This
Court takes into account the nature of the criticism and weighs the
possible repercussions of the same on the Judiciary. When the
criticism comes from persons outside the profession who may not
have a full grasp of legal issues or from individuals whose personal
or other interests in making the criticism are obvious, the Court
may perhaps tolerate or ignore them. However, when law professors
are the ones who appear to have lost sight of the boundaries of fair
commentary and worse, would justify the same as an exercise of
civil liberties, this Court cannot remain silent for such silence
would have a grave implication on legal education in our country.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; It is established in
jurisprudence that where the excessive and contumacious language
used is plain and undeniable, then good intent can only be
mitigating.·With respect to the 35 respondents named in the
Common Compliance, considering that this appears to be the
first time these respondents have been involved in disciplinary
proceedings of this sort, the Court is willing to give them the benefit
of the doubt that they were for the most part well-intentioned in the
issuance of the Statement. However, it is established in
jurisprudence that where the excessive and contumacious language
used is plain and undeniable, then good intent can only be
mitigating. x x x Thus, the 35 respondents named in the Common
Compliance should, notwithstanding their claim of good faith, be
reminded of their lawyerly duty, under Canons 1, 11 and 13, to give
due respect to the courts and to refrain from intemperate and
offensive language tending to influence the Court on pending
matters or to denigrate the courts and the administration of justice.
550
551
552
553
554
evidence in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC in order to divine the bases for the
Show Cause Resolution. If respondents have chosen not to include
certain pieces of evidence in their respective compliances or chosen
not to make a full defense at this time, because they were counting
on being granted a hearing, that is respondentsÊ own look-out.
Indeed, law professors of their stature are supposed to be aware of
the above jurisprudential doctrines regarding the non-necessity of a
hearing in disciplinary cases. They should bear the consequence of
the risk they have taken.
Same; Same; Same; Academic Freedom; All lawyers, whether
they are judges, court employees, professors or private practitioners,
are officers of the Court and have voluntarily taken an oath, as an
indispensable qualification for admission to the Bar, to conduct
themselves with good fidelity towards the courts·there is no
exemption from this sworn duty for law professors, regardless of
their status in the academic community or the law school to which
they belong.·In a democracy, members of the legal community are
hardly expected to have monolithic views on any subject, be it a
legal, political or social issue. Even as lawyers passionately and
vigorously propound their points of view they are bound by certain
rules of conduct for the legal profession. This Court is certainly not
claiming that it should be shielded from criticism. All the Court
demands is the same respect and courtesy that one lawyer owes to
another under established ethical standards. All lawyers, whether
they are judges, court employees, professors or private
practitioners, are officers of the Court and have voluntarily taken
an oath, as an indispensable qualification for admission to the Bar,
to conduct themselves with good fidelity towards the courts. There
is no exemption from this sworn duty for law professors, regardless
of their status in the academic community or the law school to
which they belong.
CARPIO, J., Dissenting Opinion:
Courts; Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Freedom of Expression; The
majorityÊs action impermissibly expands the CourtÊs administrative
powers and, more importantly, abridges constitutionally protected
speech on public conduct guaranteed to all, including members of
the bar.·I find the Compliance of the 37 legal scholars satisfactory
and therefore see no need to admonish or warn them for supposed
use of
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
For disposition of the Court are the various submissions
of the 37 respondent law professors1 in response to the
Resolu-
_______________
569
_______________
570
CANON 1·A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
RULE 1.02·A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities
aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the
legal system.
CANON 10·A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to
the court.
Rule 10.01·A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor
consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or
allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02·A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or
misrepresent the contents of paper, the language or the
argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already
rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a
fact that which has not been proved.
Rule 10.03·A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure
and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
CANON 11·A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due
to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar
conduct by others.
RULE 11.05·A lawyer shall submit grievances against a
Judge to the proper authorities only.
CANON 13 · A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and
refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the
appearance of influencing the court.
571
_______________
572
_______________
573
I.
IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT IS HIGHLY IMPROPER FOR THIS HONORABLE COURTÊS
JUDGMENT OF APRIL 28, 2010 TO PLAGIARIZE AT LEAST THREE SOURCES·AN
ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN 2009 IN THE YALE LAW JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
_______________
574
_______________
575
Your Honours:
I write concerning a most delicate issue that has come to my
attention in the last few days.
Much as I regret to raise this matter before your esteemed Court, I
am compelled, as a question of the integrity of my work as an
academic and as an advocate of human rights and humanitarian
law, to take exception to the possible unauthorized use of my law
review article on rape as an international crime in your esteemed
CourtÊs
_______________
17 Prof. CriddleÊs response was posted on July 19, 2010 at 2:44 EST. See link
below:
http://opiniojuris.org/2010/07/19/international-law-plagiarism-charge-
bedevils-philippines-supreme-court-justice/ (Last accessed on January 20,
2011).
18 This letter was subsequently published in the Philippine Star as shown
by Annex 7 of the 35 respondentsÊ Common Compliance filed on November 19,
2010; Rollo, pp. 309-310.
576
_______________
577
_______________
578
The Honorable
Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines
Through: Hon. Renato C. Corona
Chief Justice
Subject: Statement of faculty
from the UP College of Law
on the Plagiarism in the case of
Vinuya v. Executive Secretary
Your Honors:
We attach for your information and proper disposition a
statement signed by thirty[-]eight (38)28 members of the faculty of
the UP College of Law. We hope that its points could be
considered by the Supreme Court en banc.
Respectfully,
(Sgd.)
Marvic M.V.F. Leonen
_______________
26 See paragraph 2.9, Dean Leonen Compliance dated November 19, 2010;
Rollo, p. 327.
27 The date of posting of the Statement is not indicated on the UP Law
website. See http://law.upd.edu.ph/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=166:restoring-integrity-a-statement-by-
the-faculty-of-the-up-college-of-law&catid=52:faculty-news&Itemid=369 (Last
accessed on January 20, 2011).
28 Although the DeanÊs letter indicated that 38 faculty members signed the
statement, an examination of the attachment showed that the number of
purported signatories was only 37.
579
RESTORING INTEGRITY
A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW
ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND
MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT
An extraordinary act of injustice has again been committed against the
brave Filipinas who had suffered abuse during a time of war. After they
courageously came out with their very personal stories of abuse and
suffering as „comfort women‰, waited for almost two decades for any
meaningful relief from their own government as well as from the
government of Japan, got their hopes up for a semblance of judicial
recourse in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230 (28
April 2010), they only had these hopes crushed by a singularly
reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest
Court of the land.
It is within this frame that the Faculty of the University of the
Philippines College of Law views the charge that an Associate Justice of
the Supreme Court committed plagiarism and misrepresentation in
Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. The plagiarism and misrepresentation are
not only affronts to the individual scholars whose work have been
appropriated without correct attribution, but also a serious threat to the
integrity and credibility of the Philippine Judicial System.
In common parlance, ÂplagiarismÊ is the appropriation and
misrepresentation of another personÊs work as oneÊs own. In the field of
writing, it is cheating at best, and stealing at worst. It constitutes a
taking of someone elseÊs ideas and expressions, including all the effort
and creativity that went into committing such ideas and ex-
580
581
581
583
REGULAR FACULTY
584
LECTURERS
_______________
585
_______________
30 This was received by the Court on August 20, 2010. It was also reported
on Newsbreak that same day. See (http://www.newsbreak.ph/2010/08/20/third-
author-plagiarized-by-sc-justice-complains/).
586
_______________
587
_______________
33 Id.
588
_______________
589
_______________
590
591
_______________
592
_______________
46 Id., at p. 204.
47 Id., at p. 205.
48 Id., at p. 208.
49 Id., at pp. 208-209.
50 Respondents were referring to the article by Donna Pazzibugan
entitled „High Court Not Probing ÂPlagiarism,ʉ which according to
footnote 28 of the Common Compliance may be accessed at
<http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/2010072182283/High-
court-not-probing-plagiarism> as of November 12, 2010.
593
_______________
594
_______________
595
_______________
596
_______________
66 Id., at p. 215.
67 37 Phil. 731 (1918).
68 G.R. No. L-27654, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 562.
69 137 Phil. 471 (1969).
70 160-A Phil. 929 (1975).
71 Common Compliance; Rollo, p. 217.
597
„WHEREFORE:
A. Respondents, as citizens of a democracy, professors of law,
members of the Bar and officers of the Court, respectfully pray
that:
1. the foregoing be noted; and
2. the Court reconsider and reverse its adverse findings in the Show
Cause Resolution, including its conclusions that respondents have:
[a] breached their „obligation as law professors and officers of the
Court to be the first to uphold the dignity and authority of this
Court, ⁄ and not to promote distrust in the administration of
justice;‰ and [b] committed „violations of Canons 10, 11, and 13
and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.‰
_______________
598
_______________
599
600
601
_______________
602
_______________
603
_______________
604
_______________
89 Id., at p. 326.
90 Id., in Footnote 2.
91 Id., at pp. 326-327.
605
_______________
92 Id., at p. 327.
93 Id., in Footnote 3.
94 Id., at pp. 331-332.
606
_______________
95 Id., at p. 332.
96 Id., at p. 328, in footnote 4.
607
_______________
608
_______________
103 Lynch Manifestation; Rollo, p. 188; citing New York Times, Co. v.
Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964) quoted with approval by the Court in Lopez
v. Court of Appeals, 145 Phil. 219 (1970).
104 Id.
105 G.R. No. 95445, August 6, 1991, 200 SCRA 323.
106 Quoted by Prof. Lynch from the Dissenting Opinion of Justice
Gutierrez, Jr. in the Manila Public School Teachers Association case (Id.
at p. 338).
609
Issues
_______________
107 Quoted by Prof. Lynch from the Dissenting Opinion of Justice
Cruz in the Manila Public School Teachers Association case (Id. at 343).
108 Supra note 69.
109 Lynch Manifestation; Rollo, p. 189.
110 Id.
610
DISCUSSION
611
_______________
111 Show Cause Resolution; Rollo, p. 25.
112 Id., at p. 26.
113 To date, said motion for reconsideration of the Vinuya decision is still
pending resolution by the Court.
612
613
614
[I]n order to call the attention of the court in a special way to the
essential points relied upon in his argument and to emphasize the
force thereof, the many reasons stated in his said motion were
sufficient and the phrases in question were superfluous. In order
to appeal to reason and justice, it is highly improper and
amiss to make trouble and resort to threats, as Attorney
Vicente J. Francisco has done, because both means are
annoying and good practice can never sanction them by
reason of their natural tendency to disturb and hinder the
free exercise of a serene and impartial judgment,
particularly in judicial matters, in the consideration of
questions submitted for resolution.
There is no question that said paragraph of Attorney Vicente J.
FranciscoÊs motion contains a more or less veiled threat to the court
because it is insinuated therein, after the author shows the course
which the voters of Tiaong should follow in case he fails in his
attempt, that they will resort to the press for the purpose of
denouncing, what he claims to be a judicial outrage of which
his client has been the victim; and because he states in a
threatening manner with the intention of predisposing the
mind of the reader against the court, thus creating an
atmosphere of prejudices against it in order to make it
odious in the public eye, that decisions of the nature of that
referred to in his motion promote distrust in the administration of
justice and increase the proselytes of sakdalism, a movement with
seditious and revolutionary tendencies the activities of which, as is
of public knowledge, occurred in this country a few days ago. This
cannot mean otherwise than contempt of the dignity of the
court and disrespect of the authority thereof on the part of
Attorney Vicente J. Francisco, because he presumes that the
court is so devoid of the sense of justice that, if he did not
resort to intimidation, it would maintain its error
notwithstanding the fact that it may be proven, with good
reasons, that it has acted erroneously.‰118 (Emphases supplied.)
_______________
615
616
_______________
617
618
_______________
619
_______________
620
621
622
_______________
128 Id., at pp. 367-368.
129 Supra note 69.
623
_______________
130 Id., at p. 494.
131 248 Phil. 542 (1988).
624
_______________
_______________
134 G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991, 201 SCRA 210, 214, where
the Court ruled that:
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires
the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience. „To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts
which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is
to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service
requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.‰ (Citing 111
ALR 23.)
626
627
VOL. 644, MARCH 8, 2011 627
Re: Letter of the UP Law Entitled "Restoring Integrity: A
Statement by the Faculty of the UP College of Law on the
Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the
Supreme Court
_______________
628
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Re: Letter of the UP Law Entitled "Restoring Integrity: A
Statement by the Faculty of the UP College of Law on the
Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the
Supreme Court
_______________
629
630
_______________
631
cuse from liability (13 C. J., 45). Neither is the fact that the
phrases employed are justified by the facts a valid defense:
„Where the matter is abusive or insulting, evidence
that the language used was justified by the facts is not
admissible as a defense. Respect for the judicial office
should always be observed and enforced.‰ (In re Stewart,
118 La., 827; 43 S., 455.) Said lack or want of intention
constitutes at most an extenuation of liability in this
case, taking into consideration Attorney Vicente J.
FranciscoÊs state of mind, according to him when he
prepared said motion. This court is disposed to make
such concession. However, in order to avoid a recurrence
thereof and to prevent others, by following the bad
example, from taking the same course, this court considers it
imperative to treat the case of said attorney with the
justice it deserves.‰139 (Emphases supplied.)
_______________
632
633
_______________
634
635
636
637
_______________
638
_______________
639
[I]n several cases, the Court has disciplined lawyers without further
inquiry or resort to any formal investigation where the facts on
record sufficiently provided the basis for the determination of their
administrative liability.
In Prudential Bank v. Castro, the Court disbarred a lawyer
without need of any further investigation after considering
his actions based on records showing his unethical
misconduct; the misconduct not only cast dishonor on the image of
both the Bench and the Bar, but was also inimical to public interest
and welfare. In this regard, the Court took judicial notice of several
cases handled by the errant lawyer and his cohorts that revealed
their modus operandi in circumventing the payment of the proper
judicial fees for the astronomical sums they claimed in their cases.
The Court held that those cases sufficiently provided the basis for
the determination of respondentsÊ administrative liability, without
need for further inquiry into the matter under the principle of res
ipsa loquitur.
Also on the basis of this principle, we ruled in Richards v. Asoy,
that no evidentiary hearing is required before the
respondent may be disciplined for professional misconduct
already established by the facts on record.
xxxx
_______________
640
_______________
641
642
643
644
DISSENTING OPINION
CARPIO, J.:
I find the Compliance of the 37 legal scholars1
satisfactory and therefore see no need to admonish or warn
them2 for
_______________
645
_______________
646
_______________
647
_______________
misused in the CourtÊs ruling in Vinuya, had since filed formal
complaints with the Court.
648
_______________
649
_______________
650
_______________
651
_______________
652
_______________
653
_______________
654
DISSENTING OPINION
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
Consistent with my dissent from the CourtÊs October 19,
2010 Resolution, I maintain my position that, in the first
place, there was no reasonable ground to motu proprio
initiate the administrative case, in view of (1) the therein
discussed injudiciousness attending the Resolution,
anchored on an irregularly concluded finding of indirect
contempt with adverse declarations prematurely describing
the subject Statement of the UP Law Faculty that could
taint the disciplinary action, and (2) the CourtÊs
conventionally permissive attitude toward the „expression
of belief‰ or „manner of criticism‰ coming from legal
academics, lawyer-columnists, and civic circles, in a
number of high-profile cases, most notably at the height of
the „CJ Appointment Issue‰ during which time the motion
for reconsideration of the CourtÊs decision was similarly
pending.
SEPARATE OPINION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
This treats of respondentsÊ compliance with the CourtÊs
Resolution dated October 19, 2010, which required
respondents, who are professors of the University of the
Philippines College of Law, to show cause why they should
not be disciplined as members of the bar for having
published a Statement entitled, „Restoring Integrity: A
Statement by the Faculty of the University of the
Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism
and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court‰ which
appeared to contain statements that were disrespectful to
the Court. The CourtÊs directive reads as follows:
655
_______________
656
sors of law. They aver that they acted with the purest
intentions, guided by their duty of candor, fairness and
good faith to the Court, and deny that it was their intention
to malign the Court as an institution for its decision in
Vinuya v. Executive Secretary.2 They claim that any
reference to Vinuya in their statement was made only to
establish and accent the grave consequences of the
allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation allegedly
committed by one of the CourtÊs members. Indeed, they
claim that the Statement was intended „to defend the
integrity and credibility of the entire Supreme Court‰ and
ensure continued confidence in the legal system and the
Judiciary by calling on the Court to take constructive
action in the face of the damaging allegations. They also
add that the Statement was meant to address what they
perceived as indifference on the part of the Court owing to
certain statements reportedly made by Supreme Court
Administrator and spokesperson, Atty. Jose Midas P.
Marquez (that Chief Justice Renato C. Corona would not
take any action on the charges) and their reading of Justice
Mariano C. Del CastilloÊs letter replying to the allegations.
Respondents affirm their loyalty and respect for the
Court and claim that as professors of law, they have a
special interest in guarding against plagiarism and
misrepresentation to ensure intellectual honesty among
their students. They allegedly released the Statement in
support of „efforts to achieve high standards in law schools
as well as in the practical training of law students and
assist in disseminating information regarding law and
jurisprudence.‰ Citing similar commentaries on the issue,
they likewise invoke freedom of speech and academic
freedom to justify the publication of their stand on the
matter.
Finally, respondents argue that the Resolution
amounted to a prejudgment of their liability for contempt
and breach of
_______________
657
658
659
660
_______________
661
DISSENTING OPINION
SERENO, J.:
The history of the Supreme Court shows that the times
when it emerged with strength from tempests of public
criticism were those times when it valued constitutional
democracy and its own institutional integrity. Indeed,
dangers from pressure and threat presented by what is
usually constitutionally deemed as free speech can arise
only when the Court allows itself to be so threatened. It is
unfortunate when a tribunal admits that its core of
independence can be shaken by a twelve-paragraph, two-
page commentary from academia. By issuing the Show
Cause Order, and affirming it in the current Decision, the
Court puts itself in the precarious posi-
662
_______________
663
_______________
664
_______________
665
666
_______________
667
_______________
668
„So that, in line with the doctrinal rule that the protective
mantle of contempt may ordinarily be invoked only against
scurrilous remarks or malicious innuendoes while a court mulls
over a pending case and not after the conclusion thereof, Atty.
Almacen would now seek to sidestep the thrust of a contempt
charge by his studied emphasis that the remarks for which he is
now called upon to account were made only after this Court had
written finis to his appeal.‰
_______________
669
670
_______________
14 Pacuribot v. Judge Lim, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-97-1382, 17 July 1997.
15 17 C.J.S. Contempt § 45.
16 Heirs of the Late Justice Jose B.L. Reyes v. CA, G.R. Nos. 135180-81, 16
August 2000, 338 SCRA 282, 299, citing Yasay, Jr. v. Recto, 313 SCRA 739
[1999], citing Dee v. SEC, 199 SCRA 238 (1991).
17 Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778; Peo. v. Alarcon, 69 Phil. 265.
18 A.M. No. RTJ-93-955, 12 December 1995.
671
ing their contempt powers for correction and preservation, not for
retaliation or vindication.
It is true that, in the case at bench, respondent judge, after
having received a copy of AgapitoÊs affidavit in connection with the
petitionerÊs administrative charges against him, directed Agapito to
show cause within three days from notice why he should not be held
in contempt of court⁄but, without the benefit of hearing required
in Rule 71, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, respondent judge, in an
Order, dated February 22, 1993, sentenced Agapito guilty for
contempt of court on account of the allegations he made in his
affidavit, dated November 18, 1992. Such failure to afford Agapito
the opportunity to be heard as a matter of due process of law
deserves administrative sanction.‰
672
673
„To maintain not only its stature, but also, more importantly, its
independence, the judiciary must adhere to the discipline of judicial
decision-making, firmly rooting rulings in the language of the
documents in issue, precedent and logic. That is, the strength of the
judiciary's independence depends not only on the constitutional
framework, but also on the extent to which the judiciary
acknowledges its responsibility to decide Âaccording to lawÊ⁄‰22
_______________
673
_______________
23 Nebraska Press AssÊn v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791 (1976)
24 Dagudag v. Paderanga, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2017, 19 June 2008, 555
SCRA 217, 235.
25 Ariosa v. Tamin, A.M. No. RTJ-92-798, 15 November 2000.
26 Torcende v. Sardido, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1238, 24 January 2003.
675
_______________
27 Juan de la Cruz v. Carretas, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2043, 5 September
2007, 532 SCRA 218, 227-229.
676
_______________
677
_______________
31 Phoebe Haddon, Academic Freedom and Governance: A Call for
Increased Dialogue and Diversity, 66 Tex. L. Rev. 1561.
678
679
··o0o··