IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM, ETC.

, AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO.

- decisions of the court are not written to earn merit, accolade, or prize as an original
piece of work or art.

- The interest of society in written decisions is not that they are originally crafted but that they
are fair and correct in the context of the particular disputes involved. Justice, not originality,
form, and style, is the object of every decision of a court of law.

- And because judicial precedents are not always clearly delineated, they are quite often
entangled in apparent inconsistencies or even in contradictions, prompting experts in the law
to build up regarding such matters a large body of commentaries or annotations…And,
because of the need to be precise and correct, judges and practitioners alike, by practice
and tradition, usually lift passages from such precedents and writings, at times omitting,
without malicious intent, attributions to the originators.

- A judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or appellate, is exempted from a charge of
plagiarism even if ideas, words or phrases from a law review article, novel thoughts
published in a legal periodical or language from a party’s brief are used without giving
attribution. Thus judges are free to use whatever sources they deem appropriate to resolve
the matter before them, without fear of reprisal. This exemption applies to judicial writings
intended to decide cases for two reasons: the judge is not writing a literary work and, more
importantly, the purpose of the writing is to resolve a dispute. As a result, judges adjudicating
cases are not subject to a claim of legal plagiarism.

GUERRERO vs. VILLAMOR