Birginias, Chazel Annafe D.

Legal Ethics Review

CANON 10

Question:
Dean Pascual of University of the South College of Law posted on the University bulletin board and
submitted before the Supreme Court an opinion on the alleged plagiarism committed by one of its
justices, Justice Smith, in its ponencia of the Delfin rape case. The opinion was published as ‘Statement
by the Faculty of the University of the South College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and
Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court’, however, it was not signed by the faculty members including
former Associate Justice Paulino who was listed as an endorser. Dean Pascual submitted a revised copy
of the Statement with the same content but signed only by its faculty members without that of the
former Associate Justice. In a letter, Dean Pascual explained that former Associate Justice Paulino failed
to sign because on the same day of the Statement’s publication, the latter had to leave for the US.
Nonetheless, Justice Paulino has verbally agreed to be an endorser prior to his departure. Did Dean
Pascual violated the Code of Professional Responsibility in submitting the Statement?

Answer:
Yes, the Statement was formally submitted to the Supreme Court at a specific point in time and it should
reflect accurately its signatories at that point. Dean Pascual violated Canon 10: Rules 10.01, 10.02 and
10.03 of the CPR, when he submitted before the Court an unsigned Statement. In most cases, it is
the original signed document that is transmitted to the Court or at the very least a photocopy of the
actual signed document. As held in a similar case, the value of the Statement as a UP Law Faculty
Statement lies precisely in the identities of the persons who have signed it, since the Statement’s
persuasive authority mainly depends on the reputation and stature of the persons who have endorsed
the same. Indeed, it is apparent from respondents’ explanations that their own belief in the
"importance" of their positions as UP law professors prompted them to publicly speak out on the matter
of the plagiarism issue in the Vinuya case (A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC. March 8, 2011).

It is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls
of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and
slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross
violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary
action (In Re: Almacen 31 SCRA 562, 579-580 [1970]).

CANON 13

Question:
Suppose the Delfin rape case and the administrative case for plagiarism were still both sub judice or
pending final disposition, what violations against the CPR were committed by the signatories, if any?

Answer:

The signatories violated Canons 1, 11 and 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when they
posted the ‘Statement’ in public with knowledge that the cases were still pending final disposition. In a
similar case, the Court held respondent faculty members of UP Law in violation of the said Canons
despite their contention that they were merely exercising academic freedom and freedom of expression.
The Court held that: No matter how firm a lawyer’s conviction in the righteousness of his cause there is
simply no excuse for denigrating the courts and engaging in public behavior that tends to put the courts
and the legal profession into disrepute. Furthermore, 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 (A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC. March 8,
2011).