Case Digest (A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC)
Facts:
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC (660 Phil. 1), March 08, 2011, the Supreme Court En Banc, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court. The matter arose from a letter/statement by faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law 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,” which the Dean, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, formally submitted to the Court on August 11, 2010.
The background began with the Supreme Court’s promulgation of the ponencia in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230 (April 28, 2010). Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration (May 31, 2010); a supplemental motion filed July 19, 2010 for the first time alleged plagiarism in the Vinuya ponencia by Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, citing several foreign scholars (Evan Criddle & Evan Fox‑Decent; Christian Tams; Mark Ellis). Press reports and letters from the purportedly appropriated authors followed in July and August 2010. The Court formed an Ethics Committee (Memorandum Order No. 35‑2010, July 27, 2010) and docketed the Del Castillo ethics matter as A.M. No. 10‑7‑17‑SC.
On August 9–11, 2010 a 12‑paragraph Statement by the UP Law faculty was widely posted and then formally transmitted to the Court. The Statement strongly criticized the Vinuya decision, called the ponencia a “reprehensible act of dishonesty,” urged remedial institutional reforms and asked the ponente to resign; the first submission to the Court (attached to Dean Leonen’s August 10 cover letter) showed names with “(SGD.)” not actual signatures. When the Ethics Committee later required production of the signed Statement, a signed version (Restoring Integrity I) bearing 37 actual signatories was produced; discrepancies between versions (including an erroneously listed Justice Vicente V. Mendoza and omission of one actual signatory) became material.
By en banc Resolution dated October 19, 2010 the Court treated the faculty Statement as an administrative matter and issued a Show Cause directing thirty‑seven faculty members to explain why they should not be disciplined under Canons 1, 11 and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and directed Dean Leonen to show cause re: Canon 10 and Rules 10.01–10.03 for submitting a “dummy” not a true and faithful reproduction. The matter was docketed as a motu proprio disciplinary proceeding (A.M. No. 10‑10‑4‑SC). The 35 (of 37) respo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the Show Cause Resolution deny respondents their right to freedom of expression?
- Does the Show Cause Resolution violate respondents’ academic freedom as law professors?
- Do respondents’ submissions satisfactorily explain why they should not be disciplined under Canons 1, 11 and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
- Does Dean Leonen’s separate Compliance satisfactorily explain why he should not be disciplined under Canon 10 and Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
- Are respondents entitled to a hearing and to production/access of records and witnesses in this administrative...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)