In Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty

AM No. 10-10-4-SC; March 8, 2011

Lawyers’ Four-Fold Duty (Specifically to the Court)

Issue: Should the 37 members of the UP Law Faculty be disciplined for violating the
Code of Professional Responsibility?

Facts:
 In a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration in the Vinuya, et al. v. Executive
Secretary case, Attys. Roque and Bagares accused Justice Del Castillo of
plagiarizing from three sources (Criddle & Fox-Decent, Tam and Ellis) in his
decision in the aforementioned case
o Note: Vinuya v. Executive Secretary is about Filipino comfort women,
where Del Castillo ruled against the petitioner
 Justice Del Castillo wrote a letter to the Supreme Court, replying to the charge of
plagiarism found in Attys. Roque and Bagares’ Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration
 The following day, the Supreme Court received a letter from Ellis regarding the
plagiarism of and misconstrued arguments from his work
 On July 27, 2010, the Court formed the Committee on Ethics and Ethical
Standards to investigate the plagiarism charge versus Justice Del Castillo
 On August 9, 2010, the UP Law Faculty, as represented by Dean Leonen,
submitted a statement called “Restoring Integrity” that was dated on July 27,
2010
 The strongly worded statement discussed the allegations of plagiarism and
misrepresentation in the Supreme Court
 A week later, the court received a letter from Tams about the plagiarism and
misinterpretation of his work, as seen in Justice Del Castillo’s decision in Vinuya
v. Executive Secretary
 On October 19, 2010, the Court sent a Show Cause Resolution about “Restoring
Integrity” to the UP Law Faculty, noting the following:
o The opening sentence, along with other parts of the letter, were
considered as institutional attacks versus the Court, questioning their
honesty, integrity and competence
o The UP Law Faculty accused the Supreme Court of purposely delaying the
resolution, and being indifferent towards and lacking concern for the
petitioners, and the most basic values of decency and respect
o While the Court acknowledged the UP Law Faculty’s right to criticism, the
Court claimed that they had gone too far and that their attacks
threatened the independence of the judiciary
 In the same resolution, the Court ordered the 37 UP Law Faculty members to
explain why they should not be disciplined for violations of Canons 1, 11 and 13,
and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
 This controversy was filed as a regular administrative matter in the Supreme
Court
 Excluding Prof. Lynch and Prof. Vasquez, the 35 members of the UP Law Faculty
submitted a Common Compliance in relation to the charge of violations of
Canons 1, 11 and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The Common Compliance emphasized the following points:
o Respondents’ alleged noble intentions
 “Restoring Integrity” was intended to help defend the Court’s
integrity and credibility, and to ensure continued confidence in
the legal system
 The UP Law Faculty thought that the Court was being indifferent
to the dangers posed by plagiarism, which is why they quickly
took a public stand on the issue
o The “correctness” of respondents’ position that Justice Del Castillo
committed plagiarism and should be held accountable in accordance with
the standards of academic writing
 The UP Law Faculty argued that Justice Del Castillo really did
plagiarize on his Supreme Court decisions, thus their creating of
“Restoring Integrity” was justifiable
o Respondents’ belief that they are being “singled out” by the Court when
others have likewise spoken on the plagiarism issue
 Several sources (i.e. Columns/Editorials/Reports in newspapers by
Ramon Tulfo, Former IP Office Director Gen. Cristobal, Former CJ
Panganiban, Sen. Pangilinan, Dean Villanueva, & Dean of the Liceo
de Cagayan University College of Law) also spoke about Justice
Del Castillo’s supposed plagiarism and called for him to step down
 Only the UP Law Faculty were called out and charged with a Show
Cause Resolution for violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility
o Freedom of expression
 Even if they are also lawyers, the UP Law Faculty are citizens of a
democracy and are protected in the exercise of free speech
o Academic freedom
 UP Law Faculty claimed that academic freedom includes the
freedom to engage in a free and healthy dialogue on a faculty
member’s field of study without fear of reprisal
 Prof. Lynch and Prof. Vasquez submitted their own separate compliances
independent of each other
o Prof. Lynch manifested that he is not under the jurisdiction of the Court,
as a member of the bar of the State of Minnesota. But, in any case, he
argued that sharp attacks are just a part of the debate on public issues
and that effective speech must be forceful enough to make recipients
listen
 o Prof. Vasquez explained that:
 He signed the document because he agreed in principle with the
main theme of Restoring Integrity
 He had the right to comment on acts of public officers
 He had no intention to influence the Court in its ruling of the
Vinuya case
 He had no intention to attack the integrity of the Court
 The issue was a popular topic of discussion in the College of Law
as some people were of the opinion that willful and deliberate
intent was an essential element of plagiarism, while others did not
 He realized that he may have failed to see the implications of the
Restoring Integrity’s language, and that he could have been more
careful when he reviewed it

Held:
 Yes, 35 out of the 37 members of the UP Law Faculty should be disciplined for
violating the Code of Professional Responsibility
o Prof. Vasquez was excused as he submitted a satisfactory compliance
 The Court appreciated his honesty and humbleness to admit that
he may have had a lapse of judgment in the wording of the
document
o Prof. Lynch was excused on account of him not being part of the
Philippine Bar

Ratio:
 In Cayetano v. Monsod, it was established that lawyers are engaged in the
practice of law when they teach the law
 On Freedom of Expression. The Court explained in the Show Cause Resolution
that it was penalizing the UP Law Faculty for their choice of words and the
manner in which they were criticizing the Court, which the court considered as
an institutional attack. They were not penalizing the UP Law Faculty for voicing
out their dissent against the decision in the Vinuya case.
o As lawyers, the UP Law Faculty vowed to conduct himself “with all good
fidelity to the courts”
o The Rules of Court state that lawyers should “maintain towards the
courts a respectful attitude… for the maintenance of its supreme
importance”
o By oath, lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of
this Court and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice
 On Academic Freedom. As the UP Law Faculty are engaged in the practice of law
when they teach, they are required to uphold their oath and duty to the Court,
even in an academic setting
 On Being Singled Out. The Court holds that they can ignore criticism coming
from people outside the profession who may not fully understand the legal
issues. But, the Court cannot remain silent when law professors are the ones
who make unfair commentaries.
 On the Noble Intentions of the UP Law Faculty. It is established in jurisprudence
that where the excessive and stubbornly disobedient language used is plain and
undeniable, then good intent can only be mitigating.
 On the Justification of the Statement Based on UP Law’s Correct View on the
Plagiarism Case Against Justice Del Castillo. The Court believes that there is no
excuse for the sharp language that the UP Law Faculty used, and for humiliating
the Court into reconsidering the Vinuya Decision in favor of the petitioner.
Additionally, the Court already clarified that it is not the criticism of the UP Law
Faculty that is in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, but the
manner in which they conveyed said criticism.