SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW

ABRIO, Ruth P.

Juris Doctor I

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

A.M. NO. 10-7-17 SC

FEBRUARY 8, 2011

FACTS:

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 cited of materials, and gross neglect against Judge Mariano Del Castillo in
connection with the decision he wrote for the Court is the Vinuya vs. Romulo.

The petitioners’ in Vinuya filed a motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, they also filed a
supplemental motion for reconsideration, this time accusing the Judge Del Castillo of plagiarizing and
twisting passages from three foreign legal articles to support the Court’s position in the Vinuya decision:

1) A Fudiciary Theory of Jus Cogens by Professors Evan J. Criddle (Associate Professor of Syracuse
University College of Law) and Evan Fox-Descent (Assistant Professor of McGill University Faculty of
Law) published in the Yale Journal International Law in 2009.
2) Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark Ellis (Executive Director of the
International Bar Association), published in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law
in 2006; and
3) Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law by Professor Christian J. Tams (Chair of
International Law of University of Glasgow School of Law), published in Cambridge University Press
(2005).

The Court then referred the charges against Judge Del Castillo to its Committee on Ethics and
Ethical Standards, chaired by Chief Justice Renato Corona, for investigation and recommendation. After
the proceedings before it, the Committee submitted its findings and recommendations to the Court En
Banc, which when treated and decided the controversy as an administrative matter.

ISSUE:

1) Whether or not in writing the opinion of the Court in the Vinuya case, Associate Judge Del
Castillo plagiarize the published works of the authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis.
2) Whether or not Associate Judge Del Castillo twist the works of the authors Tams, Criddle-
Descent, and Ellis to make it appear that such works supported the Court’s position in the Ruling
of the Vinuya case.
 SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW

RULING:

The Court dismissed the petition and the charges against Associate Judge Del Castillo for lack of
merit and that he was not guilty of plagiarizing and twisting the cited materials and hence did not
commit gross negligence. As stated by the Court in this case that plagiarism means the theft of another
person’s language, thoughts, or ideas. To Webster, plagiarize is, “to take (ideas, writings, etc.) from
(another) and pass them off as one’s own.” The passing off of the work of another as one’s own is thus
an indispensable element of plagiarism. It was notable that neither Judge Del Castillo nor his researcher
had a motive or reason for omitting attribution for the lifted passages to Criddle-Descent or to Ellis. The
latter authors are highly respected professors of international law. Citing these authors as the sources of
the lifted passages would rather enhance rather than diminish their informative value. Both Judge Del
Castillo and his researcher gain nothing from the omission.