Case Digest (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC)
Case Digest (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC)
Facts:
In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, Etc., Against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, February 08, 2011, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.Petitioners — Isabelita C. Vinuya, et al. (members of the Malaya Lolas Organization) — sought reconsideration of the Court's October 12, 2010 decision that had dismissed administrative charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect filed against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo in connection with the ponencia he wrote for the Court in Vinuya v. Romulo, G.R. No. 162230 (promulgated April 28, 2010).
After the Vinuya decision was promulgated, petitioners and some academics alleged that Justice Del Castillo had lifted passages from several foreign authors without proper attribution and had distorted their meanings. The allegation prompted the Court to refer the matter to its Ethics and Ethical Standards Committee, which investigated and found that attributions to some foreign authors appeared in earlier drafts but were accidentally deleted during final editorial work by a court-employed legal researcher. The Committee concluded there was no deliberate intent to pass off others’ work as the justice’s own. On October 12, 2010 the Court dismissed the administrative charges; Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno dissented from that dismissal.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration of that dismissal. The Court again reviewed the Ethics Committee report and the record and, by the present Resolution, denied the motion for reconsideration. The Resolution notes petitioners’ broader claim that the October 12 ruling somehow legalized plagiarism — which the Court rejected — and declines to further pursue other related motions (e.g., a motion by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for intervention and Dr. Peter Payoyo’s separate allegations). Separately, petitioners’ counsel later filed an impeachment complaint in the House of Representatives against Justice Del Castillo arising from the same subject-matter; the Court referenced but did not decide on any conflict with that congressional action in this Resolution.
Issues:
- Should petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s October 12, 2010 dismissal of the administrative charges against Justice Del Castillo be granted?
- Does the Court’s dismissal imply that plagiarism by a judge is lawful or that judges are exempt from academic standards of attribution?
- (Raised in separate opinions) May the Supreme Court, in an administrative proceeding, determine misconduct by a sitting Supreme Court Justice that may amount to an impeachable offense, and must a judge nevertheless comply with the Intellectual Property Code and respect authors’ moral rights when writing judicial opinions?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)