Title of the Case: In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc., Against Associate Justice Mariano C.

Del Castillo.

Facts of the Case:

Members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, including Isabelita C. Vinuya, filed a petition seeking
reconsideration of the Court's decision dated October 12, 2010. This decision dismissed their charges of
plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect against Justice Mariano Del Castillo in relation
to his authored decision in G.R. No. 162230, titled Vinuya v. Romulo.

Issue:

The main issue raised by the petitioners was whether the Court's decision had legalized or approved
plagiarism in the Philippines. The petitioners claimed that the Court's decision failed to address
allegations of plagiarism adequately.

Held (Decision):

The Court, in a per curiam resolution, denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration, affirming its
earlier decision. The Court stated that the claim that it had legalized or approved plagiarism was absurd.
It emphasized that the Court condemns plagiarism, which involves the deliberate and knowing
presentation of another person's original ideas or creative expressions as one's own with malicious
intent.

The Court highlighted that the academic community may have different norms regarding plagiarism, as
some educational institutions treat any false attribution, whether intentional or out of neglect, as
plagiarism. However, this does not rewrite the common definition of plagiarism, which involves ill intent.

The Court stressed that its decisions are not written for the sake of originality, art, or merit but to
resolve disputes involving real people and legal entities seeking justice. Judges are expected to rely on
legal materials in their decisions, and there is a doctrine of stare decisis that encourages citing historical
legal data, precedents, and related studies.

The resolution also cited the practice of judges and legal practitioners lifting passages from precedents
and legal writings, often without malicious intent, for the sake of precision and correctness in legal
arguments. It emphasized that judges are exempt from charges of legal plagiarism when adjudicating
cases.
The Court acknowledged that Justice Del Castillo had failed to attribute certain materials to foreign
authors in the Vinuya decision, but it attributed this omission to an accidental deletion by a court-
employed researcher. The Court found no malicious intent on Justice Del Castillo's part, as the remaining
attributions in the decision still showed that the ideas did not belong to him.

Principles Used:

The common definition of plagiarism involves the deliberate and knowing presentation of another
person's original ideas or creative expressions as one's own with malicious intent.

Academic institutions may have different norms regarding plagiarism, but this does not change the
common understanding of plagiarism.

Judges and legal practitioners often rely on legal materials from precedents and writings without
malicious intent for the sake of precision and correctness in legal arguments.

Judges are exempt from charges of legal plagiarism when adjudicating cases, as their purpose is to
resolve disputes, not produce original scholarship.

Accidental omissions of attribution are not considered plagiarism when there is no malicious intent.
Title of the Case: A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC : October 19, 2010

Facts of the Case:

This case revolves around allegations of plagiarism made by Attorneys Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Romel R.
Bagares against Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo regarding his opinion in the case of Vinuya v. Executive
Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010. In that case, the Supreme Court denied the petition by
Filipino comfort women seeking reparation and an apology from the Japanese government for wartime
abuses. Roque and Bagares represent the comfort women and have filed a motion for reconsideration.

The plagiarism allegations specifically concerned Justice Del Castillo's use of content from various
sources, including Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent's article, "A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens";
Christian J. Tams' book, "Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law"; and Mark Ellis' article,
"Breaking the Silence: On Rape as an International Crime." The focus of the allegations was on Justice
Del Castillo's discussion of the principles of jus cogens and erga omnes.

The UP College of Law faculty, led by Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, published a statement supporting the
allegations of plagiarism and calling for Justice Del Castillo's resignation. In their statement, they not
only treated the allegations as facts but also criticized the Supreme Court's decision in the Vinuya case,
accusing it of perpetrating "extraordinary injustice."

Issue:

The central issue in this case was whether the actions and statements made by the UP College of Law
faculty members and Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen constituted a violation of legal and ethical standards,
including the Code of Professional Responsibility, by publicly criticizing and undermining the Supreme
Court's integrity.

Held (Decision):

The Supreme Court found that the UP College of Law faculty members and Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen
should show cause why they should not be disciplined for their actions. They were directed to explain
within ten days why they should not face disciplinary measures as members of the Bar for violating
Canons 10, 11, and 13, and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Additionally,
Dean Leonen was directed to explain why he should not be disciplined for submitting a statement that
was not a true and faithful reproduction during the pendency of the Vinuya case and the investigation
before the Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards.

Principles Used:
The court cited several legal and ethical principles in its decision:

Plagiarism is defined as appropriating another's literary work, ideas, or language and presenting them as
one's own.

The right to criticize the judiciary is important in a democratic society, but such criticism should not cross
the line into harmful and irresponsible attacks.

Publication reflecting upon the court or its members pending a suit or tending to influence the decision
of a controversy can be considered contempt of court.

Attorneys have an obligation to uphold the dignity and authority of the court and not promote distrust
in the administration of justice.

The court's decision was based on these principles, and it sought to address the alleged misconduct by
the UP College of Law faculty members and Dean Leonen.