“

A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC       March 8, 2011

RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY 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"

1
 FACTS
2
 FACTS
◆ On April 28, 2010, the ponencia of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo (Justice Del
Castillo) in Vinuya, et al. v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230) was promulgated.

◆ On May 31, 2010, the counsel for Vinuya, et al. (the "Malaya Lolas"), filed a Motion
for Reconsideration of the Vinuya decision on various grounds.

◆ On July 19, 2010, counsel for the Malaya Lolas, Attys. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr. (Atty.
Roque) and Romel Regalado Bagares (Atty. Bagares), filed a Supplemental Motion
for Reconsideration in the said case, where they posited for the first time their charge
of plagiarism as one of the grounds for reconsideration of the Vinuya decision not
only did the ponente of the case plagiarised at least 3 books and make it appear that
these sources support the judgment’s arguments for dismissing the instant petition
when in truth, the plagiarized sources it is contrary to the intent of the original works.

3
 FACTS

◆ The authors and their purportedly plagiarized articles are the following:
1) Evan J Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent’s A Fiduciary Theory of Jus
Cogens published in 2009 in the Yale Journal of International Law;
2) Christian J. Tam s’ Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International
Law published by the Cambridge University Press in 2005; and
3) Mark Ellis’ Breaking the Silence: On Rape as an International
Crime published in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law
in 2006.  
Thereafter, news regarding the plagiarism by the Supreme Court spread over
the media and the original authors wrote letters to the Chief Justice expressing
discontent by the questioned act of Justice del Castillo.
4
 FACTS

◆ Plagiarism, as appropriation and misrepresentation of another person’s

work as one’s own, is considered as “dishonesty, pure and simple.”  

◆ Hence, it was argued that since the decision in the Vinuya case form part of
the Philippine judicial system, the Court, in fine, is allowing dishonesty to be
promulgated.  Furthermore, the plagiarism and misrepresentation in the
Vinuya case undermines the judicial system of our country and is a dirt on
the honor and dignity of the Supreme Court, the article sought for the
resignation of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo.

5
 FACTS

◆ In response to the said article, the Court issued a resolution stating that the
remarks and choice of words used were such a great insult to the members
of the Court and a threat to the independence of the judiciary, the provisions
of the Code of Professional Responsibility involved in this case are as
follows:
• 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.

6
 FACTS

◆ 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.
7
 FACTS

◆ 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.

8
 FACTS

◆ Thereafter, the Court ordered the signatories to show cause on why they
should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for such alleged violations.

◆ In fulfillment of the directive by the Court, the signatories passed a Common

Compliance stating therein that their intention in issuing the article in
question “was not to malign the Court but rather to defend its integrity and
credibility and to ensure continued confidence in the legal system” by the
words used therein as “focusing on constructive action.”  They also alleged
that the respondents are correct in seeking responsibility from Justice del
Castillo for he, indeed, committed plagiarism thus, rectifying their issuance
of the article.

9
ISSUES
 ISSUES

1) Do the submissions of respondents satisfactorily explain why they

should not be disciplined as Members of the Bar under Canons 1, 11,
and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility?

2) Does the separate Compliance of Dean Leonen satisfactorily explain

why he should not be disciplined as a Member of the Bar under
Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03?

11
 RULING
12
 RULING

• 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.

13
 RULING

• 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.

14
 RULING

◆ The Common Compliance of 35 respondents, namely, Attys. Marvic M.V.F.

Leonen, Froilan M. Bacungan, Pacifico A. Agabin, Merlin M. Magallona,
Salvador T. Carlota, Carmelo V. Sison, Patricia R.P. Salvador Daway, Dante B.
Gatmaytan, Theodore O. Te, Florin T. Hilbay, Jay L. Batongbacal, Evelyn (Leo)
D. Battad, Gwen G. De Vera, Solomon F. Lumba, Rommel J. Casis, Jose
Gerardo A. Alampay, Miguel R. Armovit, Arthur P. Autea, Rosa Maria J. Bautista,
Mark R. Bocobo, Dan P. Calica, Tristan A. Catindig, Sandra Marie O. Coronel,
Rosario O. Gallo, Concepcion L. Jardeleza, Antonio G.M. La Viña, Carina C.
Laforteza, Jose C. Laureta, Rodolfo Noel S. Quimbo, Antonio M. Santos,
Gmeleen Faye B. Tomboc, Nicholas Felix L. Ty, Evalyn G. Ursua, Susan D.
Villanueva and Dina D. Lucenario, is found UNSATISFACTORY.

15
 RULING

◆ These 35 respondent law professors are reminded of their lawyerly

duty, under Canons 1, 11 and 13 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, to give due respect to the Court and to refrain from
intemperate and offensive language tending to influence the Court on
pending matters or to denigrate the Court and the administration of
justice and warned that the same or similar act in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.

16
 RULING

◆ With respect to Prof. Vasquez, after favorably noting his submission,

the Court finds his Compliance to be satisfactory.
◆ He was the only one among the respondents who showed true
candor and sincere deference to the Court. He was able to give a
straightforward account of how he came to sign the Statement. He
was likewise willing to acknowledge that he may have been remiss in
failing to assess the effect of the language of the Statement and
could have used more care. This is all that this Court expected from
respondents, not for them to sacrifice their principles but only that
they recognize that they themselves may have committed some
ethical lapse in this affair.

17
 RULING

◆ As for Prof. Lynch, in view of his Manifestation that he is a member of

the Bar of the State of Minnesota and, therefore, not under the
disciplinary authority of this Court, he should be excused from these
proceedings.
◆ While he is engaged as a professor in a Philippine law school he
should strive to be a model of responsible and professional conduct
to his students even without the threat of sanction from this Court.
Even if one is not bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility
for members of the Philippine Bar, civility and respect among legal
professionals of any nationality should be aspired for under universal
standards of decency and fairness.

18
 RULING

◆ The separate Compliance of Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen regarding

the charge of violation of Canon 10 is found UNSATISFACTORY.

◆ He is further ADMONISHED to be more mindful of his duty, as a

member of the Bar, an officer of the Court, and a Dean and professor
of law, to observe full candor and honesty in his dealings with the
Court and warned that the same or similar act in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.

19
 Thank you!

20