On April 28, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a decision which dismissed a petition filed by

the Malaya Lolas Organization in the case of Vinuya vs Romulo. Atty. Herminio Harry Roque
Jr., counsel for Vinuya et al, questioned the said decision. He raised, among others, that the
ponente in said case, Justice Mariano del Castillo, plagiarized three books when the
honorable Justice twisted the true intents of these books to support the assailed decision.
These books were:
a. A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Yale Journal of
International Law (2009);
b. Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark Ellis, Case Western Reserve
Journal of International Law (2006); and
c. Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations by Christian J. Tams, Cambridge University Press
(2005).
As such, Justice del Castillo is guilty of plagiarism, misconduct, and at least inexcusable
negligence. Interestingly, even the three foreign authors mentioned above, stated that their
works were used inappropriately by Justice Del Castillo and that the assailed decision is
different from what their works advocated.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is plagiarism in the case at bar.
In detail:
1. Whether or not, in writing the opinion for the Court in the Vinuya case, Justice Del Castillo
plagiarized the published works of authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis.
2. Whether or not Justice Del Castillo twisted the works of these authors to make it appear that such
works supported the Courts position in the Vinuya decision.

HELD: No. Even if there is (as emphasized by the Supreme Court in its ruling on the Motion
for Reconsideration filed by Vinuya et al in 2011), the rule on plagiarism cannot be applied to
judicial bodies.
No Plagiarism
At its most basic, plagiarism means the theft of another persons language, thoughts, or
ideas. To plagiarize, as it is commonly understood according to Webster, is to take (ideas,
writings, etc.) from (another) and pass them off as ones own.The passing off of the work of
another as ones own is thus an indispensable element of plagiarism.

According to Blacks Law Dictionary: Plagiarism is the deliberate and knowing presentation
of another persons original ideas or creative expressions as ones own.
This cannot be the case here because as proved by evidence, in the original drafts of the
assailed decision, there was attribution to the three authors but due to errors made by
Justice del Castillos researcher, the attributions were inadvertently deleted. There is
therefore no intent by Justice del Castillo to take these foreign works as his own.

But in plagiarism, intent is immaterial.

On this note, the Supreme Court stated that in its past decisions, (i.e. U.P Board of Regents
vs CA, 313 SCRA 404), the Supreme Court never indicated that intent is not material in
plagiarism. To adopt a strict rule in applying plagiarism in all cases leaves no room for errors.
This would be very disadvantageous in cases, like this, where there are reasonable and
logical explanations.
On the foreign authors claim that their works were used inappropriately
According to the Supreme Court, the passages lifted from their works were merely used as
background facts in establishing the state on international law at various stages of its
development. The Supreme Court went on to state that the foreign authors works can
support conflicting theories. The Supreme Court also stated that since the attributions to
said authors were accidentally deleted, it is impossible to conclude that Justice del Castillo
twisted the advocacies that the works espouse.
No Misconduct
Justice del Castillo is not guilty of misconduct. The error here is in good faith. There was no
malice, fraud or corruption.
No Inexcusable Negligence (explanation of Justice Del Castillo)
The error of Justice del Castillos researcher is not reflective of his gross negligence. The
researcher is a highly competent one. The researcher earned scholarly degrees here and
abroad from reputable educational institutions. The researcher finished third in her class and
4th in the bar examinations. Her error was merely due to the fact that the software she
used, Microsoft Word, lacked features to apprise her that certain important portions of her
drafts are being deleted inadvertently. Such error on her part cannot be said to be
constitutive of gross negligence nor can it be said that Justice del Castillo was grossly
negligent when he assigned the case to her. Further, assigning cases to researchers has
been a long standing practice to assist justices in drafting decisions. It must be emphasized
though that prior to assignment, the justice has already spelled out his position to the
researcher and in every sense, the justice is in control in the writing of the draft.
With the advent of computers, however, as Justice Del Castillos researcher also explained,
most legal references, including the collection of decisions of the Court, are found in
electronic diskettes or in internet websites that offer virtual libraries of books and articles.
Here, as the researcher found items that were relevant to her assignment, she downloaded
or copied them into her main manuscript, a smorgasbord plate of materials that she thought
she might need.
She electronically cut relevant materials from books and journals in the Westlaw website
and pasted these to a main manuscript in her computer that contained the issues for
discussion in her proposed report to the Justice. She used the Microsoft Word program. Later,
after she decided on the general shape that her report would take, she began pruning from
that manuscript those materials that did not fit, changing the positions in the general
scheme of those that remained, and adding and deleting paragraphs, sentences, and words
as her continuing discussions with Justice Del Castillo, her chief editor, demanded.

Parenthetically, this is the standard scheme that computer-literate court researchers use
everyday in their work.