Case Digest (G.R. No. 95770)
Facts:
In A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC dated October 19, 2010, the Supreme Court En Banc, through Justice Villarama, Jr., took cognizance of a public letter entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court.” The statement, signed by thirty-seven members of the UP College of Law faculty led by Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, was issued on August 9, 2010 in reaction to Atty. Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Atty. Romel R. Bagares’ allegations of plagiarism against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo in his ponencia in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010). In Vinuya, the Court denied certiorari relief to Filipino comfort women seeking reparations from the Executive Department and an apology from Japan for wartime abuses. Believing that Justice Del Castillo had misappropriated language and ideas from academic works on jus cogens and erga omne...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 95770)
Facts:
- Background of plagiarism allegation
- Attorneys Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Romel R. Bagares accused Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo of plagiarizing portions of his ponencia in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010).
- The petition for certiorari filed by Filipino comfort women seeking reparation and apology from the Japanese government was denied; a motion for reconsideration is still pending.
- UP Law Faculty statement
- On August 9, 2010, 37 members of the UP College of Law (led by Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen) published “Restoring Integrity,” calling for Justice Del Castillo’s resignation and treating the plagiarism allegations as established fact.
- The statement characterized the Supreme Court’s decision as dishonest, an act of “extraordinary injustice,” and accused the Court of delaying resolution, relying on “polluted sources,” and showing indifference and lack of basic decency.
- Supreme Court’s response
- Acknowledged the ongoing investigation under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court and the pending motion for reconsideration.
- Cited In re Kelly (35 Phil. 944) and Rule 71(Section 3) on indirect contempt for any publication pending a suit that tends to influence its outcome.
- Found the faculty’s publication “unnecessary, uncalled for and a rash act of misplaced vigilance” and in violation of Canons 10, 11, 13 and Rules 1.02, 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- Issued a resolution directing the faculty members and Dean Leonen to show cause why they should not be disciplined.
Issues:
- Contempt and disciplinary action
- Does the UP Law Faculty’s publication constitute indirect contempt by attacking the Court’s integrity and pending proceedings?
- Does the conduct violate the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canons 10, 11, 13; Rules 1.02, 11.05)?
- Procedural and due process concerns
- Does the show cause order comply with Rule 71(Section 3) and Rule 139-B’s requirements for charging indirect contempt?
- Were the faculty members afforded adequate specificity and opportunity to respond to the allegations?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)