CASE 3:

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

FACTS:

Allegations of plagiarism were hurled by Atty. Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Atty. Romel R. Bagares against
Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo for his ponencia in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. In said case,
the Court denied the petition for certiorari filed by Filipino comfort women to compel certain officers
of the executive department to espouse their claims for reparation and demand apology from the
Japanese government for the abuses committed against them by the Japanese soldiers during World
War II.

Attys. Roque and Bagares represent the comfort women in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, which is
presently the subject of a motion for reconsideration.

Thirty-seven (37) members of the faculty of the UP College of Law published a statement on the
allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation relative to the Court’s decision in Vinuya v. Executive
Secretary. Essentially, the faculty of the UP College of Law, headed by its dean, Atty. Marvic M.V.F.
Leonen, calls for the resignation of Justice Del Castillo in the face of allegations of plagiarism in his
work.

Notably, while the statement was meant to reflect the educators’ opinion on the allegations of
plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, they treated such allegation not only as an established fact, but
a truth. In particular, they expressed dissatisfaction over Justice Del Castillo’s explanation on how he
cited the primary sources of the quoted portions and yet arrived at a contrary conclusion to those of
the authors of the articles supposedly plagiarized.

The insult to the members of the Court was aggravated by imputations of deliberately delaying the
resolution of the said case, its dismissal on the basis of “polluted sources,” the Court’s alleged
indifference to the cause of petitioners, as well as the supposed alarming lack of concern of the
members of the Court for even the most basic values of decency and respect.

1
The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for the faculty’s less than objective comments
except to discredit the Decision in the Vinuya case and undermine the Court’s honesty, integrity and
competence in addressing the motion for its reconsideration. As if the case on the comfort women’s
claims is not controversial enough, the UP Law faculty would fan the flames and invite resentment
against a resolution that would not reverse the said decision.

This runs contrary to their obligation as law professors and officers of the Court to be the first to
uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which they owe fidelity according to the oath they
have taken as attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the UP Law Faculty’s actions constitute violations of Canons 10, 11, and 13 and Rules
1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. YES.

RULING:

The Court ruled that the Common Compliance given by the respondent-signatories in the questioned
article is not sufficient in reasoning why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar.

“…the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar to use strong language
in pursuit of their duty to advance the interests of their clients.

“However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does
not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. Language abounds with countless possibilities
for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.

“On many occasions, the Court has reminded members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive
personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless
required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. In keeping with the dignity of the legal
profession, a lawyer’s language even in his pleadings must be dignified.

2
“Verily, the accusatory and vilifying nature of certain portions of the Statement exceeded the limits of
fair comment and cannot be deemed as protected free speech.”

“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.

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.”

The Court further reminded the respondent law professors “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.”