EN BANC

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC

OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C.
DEL CASTILLO. Present:
CORONA, C.J.,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA, and
SERENO, JJ.
Promulgated:

February 8, 2011
x --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:

Petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya, et al., all members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, seek
reconsideration of the decision of the Court dated October 12, 2010 that dismissed their charges of
plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect against Justice Mariano Del Castillo in
connection with the decision he wrote for the Court in G.R. No. 162230, entitled Vinuya v. Romulo.
[1]

Mainly, petitioners claim that the Court has by its decision legalized or approved of the
commission of plagiarism in the Philippines. This claim is absurd. The Court, like everyone else,
condemns plagiarism as the world in general understands and uses the term.
 Plagiarism,atermnotdefinedbystatute,hasapopularorcommondefinition.To plagiarize,
says Webster, is to steal and pass off as ones own the ideas or words of another. Stealing implies
malicioustaking.BlacksLawDictionary,theworldsleadingEnglishlawdictionaryquotedbythe
Court in its decision, defines plagiarism as the deliberate and knowing presentation of another
[2]
person'soriginalideasorcreativeexpressionsasonesown. Thepresentationofanotherpersons
ideasasonesownmustbedeliberateorpremeditatedatakingwithillintent.

There is no commonlyused dictionary in the world that embraces in the meaning of
plagiarismerrorsinattributionbymereaccidentoringoodfaith.

Certain educational institutions of course assume different norms in its application. For
instance, the Loyola Schools Code of Academic Integrity ordains that plagiarism is identified not
throughintentbutthroughtheactitself.Theobjectiveactoffalselyattributingtoonesselfwhatis
not ones work, whether intentional or out of neglect, is sufficient to conclude that plagiarism has
[3]
occurred.Studentswhopleadignoranceorappealtolackofmalicearenotexcused.

ButtheCourtsdecisioninthepresentcasedoesnotsetasidesuchnorm.Thedecisionmakes
thisclear,thus:

To paraphrase Bast and Samuels, while the academic publishing model is based on the
originality of the writers thesis, the judicial system is based on the doctrine of stare decisis,
which encourages courts to cite historical legal data, precedents, and related studies in their
decisions. The judge is not expected to produce original scholarship in every respect. The
strengthof a decisionlies in the soundnessandgeneral acceptance of theprecedents andlong
[4]
heldlegalopinionsitdrawsfrom.

Original scholarship is highly valued in the academe and rightly so. A college thesis, for
instance, should contain dissertations embodying results of original research, substantiating a
[5]
specificview. Thismustbesosincethewritingisintendedtoearnforthestudentanacademic
degree, honor, or distinction. He earns no credit nor deserves it who takes the research of others,
copiestheirdissertations,andproclaimstheseashisown.Thereshouldbenoquestionthatacheat
deservesneitherrewardnorsympathy.

But the policy adopted by schools of disregarding the element of malicious intent found in
dictionariesisevidentlymoreinthenatureofestablishingwhatevidenceissufficienttoprovethe
commissionofsuchdishonestconductthaninrewritingthemeaningofplagiarism.Sinceitwould
beeasyenoughforastudenttopleadignoranceorlackofmaliceevenashehascopiedtheworkof
others,certainschoolshaveadoptedthepolicyoftreatingthemerepresenceofsuchcopiedworkin
his paper sufficient objective evidence of plagiarism. Surely, however, if on its face the students
workshowsasawholethathehasbutcommittedanobviousmistakeoraclericalerrorinoneof
hundredsofcitationsinhisthesis,theschoolwillnotbesounreasonableastocancelhisdiploma.

Incontrast,decisionsofcourtsarenotwrittentoearnmerit,accolade,orprizeasanoriginal
pieceofworkorart.Decidingdisputesisaservicerenderedbythegovernmentforthepublicgood.
Judgesissuedecisionstoresolveeverydayconflictsinvolvingpeopleoffleshandbloodwhoache
for speedy justice or juridical beings which have rights and obligations in law that need to be
protected.Theinterestofsocietyinwrittendecisionsisnotthattheyareoriginallycraftedbutthat
they are fair and correct in the context of the particular disputes involved. Justice, not originality,
form,andstyle,istheobjectofeverydecisionofacourtoflaw.

There is a basic reason for individual judges of whatever level of courts, including the
Supreme Court, not to use original or unique language when reinstating the laws involved in the
casestheydecide.Theirdutyistoapplythelawsasthesearewritten.Butlawsinclude,underthe
doctrine of stare decisis, judicial interpretations of such laws as are applied to specific situations.
Underthisdoctrine,Courtsaretostandbyprecedentandnottodisturbsettledpoint.OncetheCourt
has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that
principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same regardless of
[6]
whetherthepartiesorpropertyarethesame.

And because judicial precedents are not always clearly delineated, they are quite often
entangledinapparentinconsistenciesorevenincontradictions,promptingexpertsinthelawtobuild
up regarding such matters a large body of commentaries or annotations that, in themselves, often
become part of legal writings upon which lawyers and judges draw materials for their theories or
solutions in particular cases. And, because of the need to be precise and correct, judges and
practitionersalike,bypracticeandtradition,usuallyliftpassagesfromsuchprecedentsandwritings,
attimesomitting,withoutmaliciousintent,attributionstotheoriginators.

Is this dishonest? No. Duncan Webb, writing for the International Bar Association puts it
succinctly. When practicing lawyers (which include judges) write about the law, they effectively
place their ideas, their language, and their work in the public domain, to be affirmed, adopted,
criticized,orrejected.Beinginthepublicdomain,otherlawyerscanthusfreelyusethesewithout
fearofcommittingsomewrongorincurringsomeliability.Thus:

 Thetendencytocopyinlawisreadilyexplicable.Inlawaccuracyofwordsiseverything.
Legal disputes often centre round the way in which obligations have been expressed in legal
documents and how the facts of the real world fit the meaning of the words in which the
obligationiscontained.This,inconjunctionwiththeriskaversionoflawyersmeansthatrefuge
will often be sought in articulations that have been tried and tested. In a sense therefore the
community of lawyers have together contributed to this body of knowledge, language, and
expressionwhichiscommonpropertyandmaybeutilized,developedandbetteredbyanyone.
[7]

Theimplicitrightofjudgestouselegalmaterialsregardedasbelongingtothepublicdomain
isnotuniquetothePhilippines.AsJoyceC.George,whomJusticeMariaLourdesSerenocitesin
herdissentingopinion,observedinherJudicialOpinionWritingHandbook:

A judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or appellate, is exempted from a
chargeofplagiarismevenifideas,wordsorphrasesfromalawreviewarticle,novelthoughts
published in a legal periodical or language from a partys brief are used without giving
attribution.Thusjudgesarefreetousewhateversourcestheydeemappropriatetoresolvethe
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,thepurposeofthewritingistoresolveadispute.Asaresult,judgesadjudicating
[8]
casesarenotsubjecttoaclaimoflegalplagiarism.

IftheCourtweretoinquireintotheissueofplagiarismrespectingitspastdecisionsfromthe
timeofChiefJusticeCayetanoS.Arellanotothepresent,itislikelytodiscoverthatithasnoton
occasion acknowledged the originators of passages and views found in its decisions. These
omissionsaretrueformanyofthedecisionsthathavebeenpennedandarebeingpenneddailyby
magistratesfromtheCourtofAppeals,theSandiganbayan,theCourtofTaxAppeals,theRegional
TrialCourtsnationwideandwiththem,themunicipaltrialcourtsandotherfirstlevelcourts.Never
in the judiciarys more than 100 years of history has the lack of attribution been regarded and
demeanedasplagiarism.

This is not to say that the magistrates of our courts are mere copycats. They are not. Their
decisions analyze the often conflicting facts of each case and sort out the relevant from the
irrelevant.Theyidentifyandformulatetheissueorissuesthatneedtoberesolvedandevaluateeach
ofthelaws,rulings,principles,orauthoritiesthatthepartiestothecaseinvoke.Thedecisionsthen
draw their apt conclusions regarding whether or not such laws, rulings, principles, or authorities
applytotheparticularcasesbeforetheCourt.Theseefforts,reducedinwriting,aretheproductof
thejudgescreativity.Itishereactuallythesubstanceoftheirdecisionsthattheirgenius,originality,
andhonestlaborcanbefound,ofwhichtheyshouldbeproud.

 InVinuya,JusticeDelCastilloexaminedandsummarizedthefactsasseenbytheopposing
sidesinawaythatnoonehaseverdone.Heidentifiedandformulatedthecoreoftheissuesthatthe
parties raised. And when he had done this, he discussed the state of the law relevant to their
resolution. It was here that he drew materials from various sources, including the three foreign
authors cited in the charges against him. He compared the divergent views these present as they
developed in history. He then explained why the Court must reject some views in light of the
peculiarfactsofthecaseandappliedthosethatsuitsuchfacts.Finally,hedrewfromhisdiscussions
of the facts and the law the right solution to the dispute in the case. On the whole, his work was
original.Hehadbutdoneanhonestwork.
The Court will not, therefore, consistent with established practice in the Philippines and
elsewhere, dare permit the filing of actions to annul the decisions promulgated by its judges or
exposethemtochargesofplagiarismforhonestworkdone.

This rule should apply to practicing lawyers as well. Counsels for the petitioners, like all lawyers
handlingcasesbeforecourtsandadministrativetribunals,cannotobjecttothis.Although as a rule
theyreceivecompensationforeverypleadingorpapertheyfileincourtorforeveryopinionthey
rendertoclients,lawyersalsoneedtostrivefortechnicalaccuracyintheirwritings.Theyshouldnot
beexposedtochargesofplagiarisminwhattheywritesolongastheydonotdepart,asofficersof
thecourt,fromtheobjectiveofassistingtheCourtintheadministrationofjustice.

AsDuncanWebbsaid:

Inpresentinglegalargumentmostlawyerswillhaverecoursetoeitherpreviousdecisions
ofthecourts,frequentlyliftingwholesectionsofajudgeswordstolendweighttoaparticular
pointeitherwithorwithoutattribution.Thewordsofscholarsarealsosometimesgivenweight,
dependingonreputation.Someencyclopaedicworksaregivenparticularauthority.InEngland
this place is given to Halsburys Laws of England which is widely considered authoritative. A
lawyercandolittlebetterthantoframeanargumentorclaimtofitwiththearticulationofthe
lawinHalsburys.Whileinmanycasestheverypurposeofthecitationistoclaimtheauthority
oftheauthor,thisisnotalwaysthecase.Frequentlycommentaryordictaoflesserstandingwill
beadoptedbylegalauthors,largelywithoutattribution.

xxxx

Theconversepointisthatoriginalityinthelawisviewedwithskepticism.Itisonlythe
arrogant fool or the truly gifted who will depart entirely from the established template and
reformulateanexistingideainthebeliefthatindoingsotheywillimproveit.Whileovertime
incremental changes occur, the wholesale abandonment of established expression is generally
[9]
consideredfoolhardy.


 TheCourtprobablyshouldnothaveentertainedatallthechargesofplagiarismagainstJustice
DelCastillo,comingfromthelosingparty.Butitisacaseoffirstimpressionandpetitioners,joined
bysomefacultymembersoftheUniversityofthePhilippinesschooloflaw,haveunfairlymaligned
him with the charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect for failing to
attribute lifted passages from three foreign authors. These charges as already stated are false,
applyingthemeaningofplagiarismastheworldingeneralknowsit.

True,JusticeDelCastillofailedtoattributetotheforeignauthorsmaterialsthatheliftedfrom
theirworksandusedinwritingthedecisionfortheCourtintheVinuyacase.But,astheCourtsaid,
theevidenceasfoundbyitsEthicsCommitteeshowsthattheattributiontotheseauthorsappearedin
the beginning drafts of the decision. Unfortunately, as testified to by a highly qualified and
experienced courtemployed researcher, she accidentally deleted the same at the time she was
cleaningupthefinaldraft.TheCourtbelievedhersince,amongotherreasons,shehadnomotivefor
omittingtheattribution.Theforeignauthorsconcerned,likethedozensofothersourcesshecitedin
herresearch,hadhighreputationsininternationallaw.

Notably, those foreign authors expressly attributed the controversial passages found in their
workstoearlierwritingsbyothers.Theauthorsconcernedwerenotthemselvestheoriginators.Asit
happened,althoughtheponenciaofJusticeDelCastilloaccidentallydeletedtheattributiontothem,
there remained in the final draft of the decision attributions of the same passages to the earlier
writings from which those authors borrowed their ideas in the first place. In short, with the
remainingattributionsaftertheerroneouscleanup,thepassagesasitfinallyappearedintheVinuya
decisionstillshowedontheirfacethattheliftedideasdidnotbelongtoJusticeDelCastillobutto
others.Hedidnotpassthemoffashisown.

With our ruling, the Court need not dwell long on petitioners allegations that Justice Del
Castillo had also committed plagiarism in writing for the Court his decision in another case, Ang
[10]
Ladladv.CommissiononElections. Petitionersarenitpicking.Uponcloseexaminationandas
JusticeDelCastilloamplydemonstratedinhiscommenttothemotionforreconsideration,heinfact
madeattributionstopassagesinsuchdecisionthatheborrowedfromhissourcesalthoughtheyat
timessufferedinformattinglapses.

Consideringitsaboveruling,theCourtseesnopointinfurtherpassinguponthemotionofthe
Integrated Bar of the Philippines for leave to file and admit motion for reconsiderationin
intervention dated January 5, 2011 and Dr. Peter Payoyos claim of other instances of alleged
plagiarismintheVinuyadecision.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court DENIES petitioners motion for reconsideration for lack of
merit.

SOORDERED.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

SeedissentingopinionPleaseseedissentingopinion
ANTONIOT.CARPIOCONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

Iconcurandalsojointheseparateopinionsof
JusticeBrionandJusticeAbadSee:separateconcurringopinion
TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTROARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

IjointheopinionofJusticeA.BrionIalsothejointheseparateconcurringopinionofJustice
Brion
DIOSDADOM.PERALTALUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

(Nopart)withaseparateconcurringopinion
MARIANOC.DELCASTILLOROBERTOA.ABAD
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

IconcurandjointheseparateopinionsofJusticeBrionandJusticeAbad
MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

Ialsojointheseparateconcurring
opinionofJusticeBrionPleaseseedissentingopinion
JOSECATRALMENDOZAMARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

[1]
April28,2010.
[2]
BlacksLawDictionary(8thEdition,2004).
[3]
Availableathttp://www.admu.edu.ph/index.php?p=120&type=2&sec=25&aid=9149.
[4]
IntheMatteroftheChargesofPlagiarism,etc.,AgainstAssociateJusticeMarianoC.DelCastillo,A.M.No.10717SC,October12,
2010.
[5]
WebstersThirdNewInternationalDictionary,p.2374.
[6]
BlacksLawDictionary(6thEdition,1990),p.1406.
[7]
Duncan Webb, Plagiarism: A Threat to Lawyers Integrity? Published by the International Bar Association, available online at
http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=bc2ef7cd320743d69e8716c3bc2be595.
[8]
JoyceC.George,JudicialOpinionWritingHandbook(2007),p.725,citedbyJusticeMariaLourdesSerenoinherdissentingopinion.
[9]
Supranote7.
[10]
G.R.No.190582,April8,2010.