Reporting on CASE NO.

13
in
Persons and Family Relations

Amabelle Grace T. Jostol

Student
IN THE MATTER OF CHARGES OF
PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C.
DEL CASTILLO

A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, February 8, 2011

 FACTS
Isabelita Vinuya, et.al., a group of Filipino
“comfort women” during the Japanese military
occupation in the Philippines filed a petition and
was dismissed by the SC for having no merit in
their motion to compel the Executive Department
to espouse their claims for official apology and
other forms of damages against Japan before
International Court of Justice and other
International Tribunals.
 FACTS
Discontented with the decision, the petitioners filed a
motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, they also
filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration, this
time accusing Justice Mariano del Castillo of
plagiarizing and twisting passages from three foreign
legal articles to support the Court’s position in the
Vinuya decision. The Court then referred the charges
against Justice del Castillo to its Committee on Ethics
and Ethical Standards, chaired by Chief Justice
Renato Corona, for investigation and recommendation.
 FACTS
After the proceedings, before it, the Committee
submitted its findings and recommendation to the
Court en banc, which then treated and decided the
controversy as an administrative matter.
 ISSUE
Whether or not Justice Del
Castillo, in writing the opinion for
the court in Vinuya case,
plagiarize the published works
of authors Tams, Criddle-
Descent and Ellis.
 HELD
No, Justice Del Castillo, in writing the opinion for the Court in Vinuya
case, did not plagiarize the published works of authors Tams,
Criddle-Descent and Ellis. Otherwise, it will be disastrous that our
judicial decisions are erroneous.

Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states that “Judicial

decisions applying or interpreting the laws or other Constitution shall
form a part of the legal system of the Philippines.” When a certain
decision is being released, it has come to be part of the law of the
land. Although we have to admit that the errors committed by the Legal
Researcher of Assoc. Justice del Castillo has a disastrous effect but it
is committed in good faith and there is no intention to deceive.
 HELD
On the issue of whether or not there is plagiarism,
there is no plagiarism since the rule on plagiarism
cannot be applied to judicial bodies because
jurisprudence is part of the law of the land and
Committee on Ethic Standard’s findings supports the
same in their decision. Justice Del Castillo is not guilty
of misconduct because the error here is in good faith
and has no intention to deceive.