Legal Research and Thesis Writing ROMUALDO

ROMU ALDO PAGSIBIGAN, Petition er,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPIN
PHILIPPINES
ES and ELEAZAR CAB ASAL,
Commissioner Lee Respondents.

Pages: 22 https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_16386
8_2009.html  
8_2009.html
Case Digests from Syllabus I.-F-1. To II. F.
In the matter of the charges of plagiarism,
Note: Tanada vs Tuvera and Tawang vs LTWD is not included
etc., against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del
in the list, since we’
we ’ve already read it in other subject/s (Intro
to Law) Castillo. [A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC]

Disclaimer : Read at your own risk FACTS:  

FACTS:

Missing Cases (No Digests) On April 28,

dismissed a 2010,
petitionthe Supreme
filed Court issued
by the Malaya Lolas aOrganization
decision which
in
the case of Vinuya vs Romulo. Atty. Herminio Harry Roque Jr.,
G.R. No. L-22533 Febr uary 9, 1967 counsel for Vinuya et al, questioned the said decision. He
raised, among others, that the ponente in said case, Justice
PLACIDO C. RAMOS
RAMOS and AUGUSTO L. RAMOS, petiti oners, Mariano del Castillo, plagiarized three books when the
vs.
honorable Justice “twisted the true intents” of these books to
PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE P.I. and ANDRES
BONIFACIO, respondents.
support the assailed decision. These books were: a. A
Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by Evan J. Criddle and Evan
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/feb19
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/feb1967/
67/gr_l-
gr_l-
Fox-Descent, Yale Journal of International Law (2009); b.
22533_1967.html   Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark
Ellis, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law
G.R. No. 189529 AUGUST 10, 2012 (2006); and c. Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations by Christian
J. Tams, Cambridge University Press (2005).
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) an d
GOVERNMENT
WINSTON F. GARCIA his capacity as President and General  As such, Justice
Justice del Castillo
Castillo is guilty of plagiarism,
plagiarism, misconduct,
misconduct,
Manager of the GSIS, Petitioner, and at least inexcusable negligence. Interestingly, even the
vs. three foreign authors mentioned above, stated that their works
MARICAR B. B UENVIAJE-CARREON
UENVIAJE-CARREON,, Respon dent. were used inappropriately by Justice Del Castillo and that the
assailed decision is different from what their works advocated.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/feb19
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/feb1967/
67/gr_l-
gr_l-
22533_1967.html G.R. No. 163868 Jun e 4, 2009  Whether or not there is plagiarism in the case at bar.
ISSUE: Whether
ISSUE:
 
HELD:   No. There is no plagiarism. Even if there is (as
HELD:
emphasized by the Supreme Court in its ruling on the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Vinuya et al in 2011), the rule on
plagiarism cannot be applied to judicial bodies.
No Plagiarism  The Supreme Court went on to state that the foreign authors’
 At its most basi
basic,
c, plagiarism
plagiarism means the the
theft
ft of another persons
persons
language, thoughts, or ideas. To plagiarize, as it is commonly
understood according to Webster, is to take (ideas, writings,
etc.) from (another) and pass them off as ones own.The passing
off of the work of another as ones own is thus an indispensable
element of plagiarism.
 According to Black’s Law Dictiona
 According Dictionary:
ry: Plagiaris
Plagiarismm is the
“deliberate and knowing presentation of another person’s
own.”  
original ideas or creative expressions as one’s own.”  No Inexcusable Negligence (explanation of Justice Del Castillo)
This cannot be the case here because as proved by evidence,
in the original drafts of the assailed decision, there was
attribution to the three authors but due to errors made by Justice
del Castillo’s researcher, the attributions were inadvertently
deleted. There is therefore no intent by Justice del Castillo to
take these foreign works as his own.
But in plagiarism, intent is immaterial.
On this note, the Supreme Court stated that in its past
decisions, (i.e. U.P Board of Regents vs CA, 313 SCRA 404),
the Supreme Court never indicated that intent is not material in
plagiarism. To adopt a strict rule in applying plagiarism in all
cases leaves no room for errors. This would be very
disadvantageous in cases, like this, where there are reasonable
and logical explanations.
On the foreign authors’ claim that their works were used
inappropriately
 According to the Supreme Court, the passages lifted from their
works were merely used as background facts in establishing the
state on international law at various stages of its development.
works can support conflicting theories. The Supreme Court also
stated that since the attributions to said authors were
accidentally deleted, it is impossible to conclude that Justice del
Castillo twisted the advocacies that the works espouse.
No Misconduct 
Justice del Castillo is not guilty of misconduct. The error here is
in good faith. There was no malice, fraud or corruption.
The error of Justice del Castillo’s researcher is not reflective of
his gross negligence. The researcher is a highly competent one.
The researcher earned scholarly degrees here and abroad from
reputable educational institutions. The researcher finished third
in her class and 4th in the bar examinations. Her error was
merely due to the fact that the software she used, Microsoft
Word, lacked features to apprise her that certain important
portions of her drafts are being deleted inadvertently.
inadvertently. Such error
on her part cannot be said to be constitutive of gross negligence
nor can it be said that Justice del Castillo was grossly negligent
when he assigned the case to her. Further, assigning cases to
researchers has been a long standing practice to assist justices
in drafting decisions. It must be emphasized though that prior to
assignment, the justice has already spelled out his position to
the researcher and in every sense, the justice is in control in the
writing of the draft.
With the advent of computers, however, as Justice Del Castillos
researcher also explained, most legal references, including the
collection of decisions of the Court, are found in electronic
diskettes or in internet websites that offer virtual libraries of
booksrelevant
were and articles.
to herHere, as the researcher
assignment, found items
she downloaded that
or copied
them into her main manuscript, a smorgasbord plate of
materials that she thought she might need.
She electronically cut relevant materials from books and
 journals in the Westlaw website and pasted these to a main
manuscript in her computer that contained the issues for
discussion in her proposed report to the Justice. She used the
Microsoft Word program. Later, after she decided on the general
shape that her report would take, she began pruning from that
manuscript those materials that did not fit, changing the
positions in the general scheme of those that remained, and
adding and deleting paragraphs, sentences, and words as her
continuing discussions with Justice Del Castillo, her chief editor,
demanded. Parenthetically, this is the standard scheme that
computer-literate court researchers use everyday in their work.
MANUEL G. VILLATUYA v. ATTY. BEDE S.
TABAL INGCOS
INGCOS A.C. No. 6622,
6622, July
Ju ly 10, 2012
2012
FACTS:  
FACTS:
Complainant, Manuel G. Villatuya filed a Complaint for
Disbarment on December 06, 2004 against respondent, Atty.
Bede S. Tabalingcos. In a resolution, the court required the
respondent to file a comment, which the respondent did. The
complaint was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for investigation.
In a mandatory conference called for by the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP, complainant and his counsel, and the
respondent appeared and submitted issues for resolution. The
commission ordered the parties to submit their verified position
papers.
In the position paper submitted by the complainant on August 1,
2005, he averred that he was employed by the respondent as
financial consultant to assist the respondent in a number of
corporate rehabilitation cases. Complainant claimed that they
had a verbal agreement whereby he would be entitled to
₱50,000 for every Stay Order issued by the court in the cases
they would handle, in addition to ten percent (10%) of the fees
paid by their clients. Notwithstanding, 18 Stay Orders that was
issued by the courts as a result of his work and the respondent
being able to rake in millions from the cases that they were
working on together, the latter did not pay the amount due to
him. He also alleged that respondent engaged in unlawful
solicitation of cases by setting up two financial consultancy firms
as fronts for his legal services. On the third charge of gross
immorality, complainant accused respondent of committing two
counts of bigamy for having married two other women while his
first marriage was subsisting.
In his defense, respondent denied charges against him and
asserted that the complainant was not an employee of his law
firm but rather an employee of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc.,
one of the financial consultancy firms. Respondent alleged that
complainant was unprofessional and incompetent in performing
his job and that there was no verbal agreement between them
regarding the payment of fees and the sharing of professional
fees paid by his clients. He proffered documents showing that
the salary of complainant had been paid. Respondent also
denied committing any unlawful solicitation. To support his
contention, respondent attached a Joint Venture Agreement
and an affidavit executed by the Vice-President for operations
of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc. On the charge of gross
immorality, respondent assailed the Affidavit of a dismissed
messenger of Jesi and Jane Management, Inc., as having no
probative value, since it had been retracted by the affiant
himself. Respondent
regarding didbigamous
his alleged not specifically addresswith
marriages the allegations
two other
women
On January 9, 2006, complainant filed a Motion to Admit
Copies of 3 Marriage Contracts of respondent wherein he
attached the certified true copies of the Marriage Contracts
referred to in the Certification issued by the NSO.
On January 16, 2006, respondent submitted his Opposition to
the Motion to Admit filed by complainant, claiming that he was
not given the opportunity to controvert them. He disclosed that
criminal cases for bigamy were filed against him by the
complainant before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.
He also informed the Commission that he filed Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of the first two marriage contracts. In both
petitions, he claimed that he had recently discovered that there
were Marriage Contracts in the records of the NSO bearing his
name and allegedly executed with Rowena Piñon and Pilar
Lozano on different occasions.
The Commission scheduled a clarificatory hearing on 20
November 2007. Respondent moved for the suspension of the
resolution of the administrative case against him, pending
outcome of petition for nullification he filed with RTC, but was
denied. The Commission resolved that the administrative case
against him be submitted for resolution.
On February 27, 2008, the Commission promulgated its
Report and Recommendation addressing the specific charges
against respondent. The first charge, for dishonesty for the
nonpayment of certain shares in the fees, was dismissed for
lack of merit. On the second charge, the Commission found
respondent to have violated the rule on the solicitation of client
for having advertised his legal services and unlawfully solicited
cases. It recommended that he be reprimanded for the
violation. Asto
respondent forbethe thirdofcharge,
guilty the Commission
gross immorality foundRules
for violating
1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Due to the
gravity of the acts of respondent, the Commission
recommended that he be disbarred, and that his name be
stricken off the roll of attorneys.
On April 15, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors, through its
Resolution No. XVIII-2008-154, adopted and approved the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner.
On August 1, 2008, respondent filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, arguing that the recommendation to disbar
him was premature.
On June 26, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors denied the
Motions for Reconsideration and affirmed their Resolution
disbarment.  
dated April 15, 2008 recommending respondent’s disbarment. 
ISSUES:  
ISSUES:
1. Whether respondent violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility by nonpayment of fees to complainant;
2. Whether respondent violated the rule against unlawful
solicitation; and
3. Whether respondent is guilty of gross immoral conduct for
having married thrice.
RULING:  
RULING:
First charge: Dishonesty for non-payments of share in the
fees.
dismis sal of the first charge
Supreme Court affirmed the IBP’s dismissal
against respondent, but did not concur with the rationale
behind it. The first charge, if proven to be true is based on an
agreement that is violative of Rule 9.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Responsibility. A lawyer is proscribed by the
Code to divide or agree to divide the fees for legal services
rende-red with a person not licensed to practice law. In the
case of Tan Tek Beng v. David, Supreme Court held that an
agreement between a lawyer and a layperson to share the
fees collected from clients secured by the layperson is null and
void, and that the lawyer involved may be disciplined for
unethical conduct. Considering that complainant’s allegations
in this case had not been proven, the IBP correctly dismissed
the charge against respondent on this matter.
Second charge: Unlawful solicitation of clients.
In its Report, the IBP established the truth of these allegations
and ruled that respondent had violated the rule on the
solicitation of clients, but it failed to point out the specific
provision that was breached. Based on the facts of the case,
he violated Rule 2.03 of the Code, which prohibits lawyers
from soliciting cases for the purpose of profit.
 A lawyer is not prohibited from engaging in business or other
lawful occupation. Impropriety arises, though, when the
business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner
as to be inconsistent with the lawyer’s duties as a member of
the bar. This inconsistency arises when the business is one
that can readily lend itself to the procurement of professional
employment for the lawyer; or that can be used as a cloak for
indirect solicitation on the lawyer’s behalf; or is of a nature
that, if handled by a lawyer, would be regarded as the practice
of law.
It is clear from
complainant theJesi
that documentary evidence submitted
& Jane Management, by
Inc., which
purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was indeed a
vehicle used by respondent as a means to
procure professional employment; specifically for corporate
rehabilitation cases.
Rule 15.08 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is mandated
to inform the client whether the former is acting as a lawyer or
in another capacity. This duty is a must in those occupations
related to the practice of law. In this case, it is confusing for
the client if it is not clear whether respondent is offering
consultancy or legal services.
Considering, however, that complainant has not proven the
degree of prevalence of this practice by respondent, the
Supreme Court affirm the recommendation to reprimand the
latter for violating Rules 2.03 and 15.08 of the Code.
Third charge: Bigamy.
The Supreme Court have consistently held that a disbarment
case is sui generis. Its focus is on the qualification and fitness
of a lawyer to continue membership in the bar and not the
procedural technicalities in filing the case. Thus, in Garrido v.
Garrido:
Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with procedure — such as
the verification of pleadings and prejudicial questions, or in this
case, prescription of offenses or the filing of affidavits of
desistance by the complainant —  do not apply in the
determination of a lawyer's qualifications and fitness for
membership in the Bar. We have so ruled in the past and we