LEGAL RESEARCH REVIEWER
 Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations
Legal Research is the process of identifying
and retrieving information necessary to
answer a legal question.
BASIC STEPS IN CONDUCTING LEGAL
RESEARCH
1. Identify legal question
2. Develop outline
3. Frame the legal issues
4. Establish preliminary statement
5. Develop list of search terms
6. Gather sources (Primary, secondary,
etc.)
7. Write!
PLAGIARISM
Ateneo Law School’s Plagiarism Policies and
Disciplinary Procedures (Taken from Ateneo
Graduate School Handbook 2013)
Plagiarism is:
1. Verbatim repetition of someone else’s
words without acknowledgement;
2. Presentation of someone else’s ideas
without acknowledgement;
3. Paraphrasing, translating, or
summarizing someone else’s ideas
without acknowledgement;
4. Improper acknowledgement of
sources, as with incomplete/imprecise
documentation;
5. Having one’s work done by someone
else or having one’s work substantially
revised by someone else
In the Matter of Charges of Plagiarism, etc.
Against Associate Justice Mariano C. del
Castillo (2010)
FACTS: A petition was filed by Malaya Lolas
Organization regarding Vinuya v. Romulo
case. The petitioners alleged that Del
Castillo, the ponente plagiarized 3 works and
twisted their ideas in the process:
 A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by
Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-
Descent, Yale Journal of
International Law (2009);
 Breaking the Silence: Rape as an
International Crime by Mark Ellis,
Case Western Reserve Journal of
International Law (2006); and
by Christian J. Tams, Cambridge
University Press (2005).
Del Castillo’s defense was his decision went
through a couple of edits. His research
assistant accidentally left the citations as
they were rewriting the drafts.
ISSUE: W/N Del Castillo should be charged for
grave misconduct on account of plagiarism.
HELD: NO. Plagiarism is not applicable to
judiciary bodies. In making judicial decisions,
copying others’ word per word is expected as
most cases involve stare decisis. The
judiciary is not in the business of making
original works, they are expected to render
fair judgment and to do so they adapt to and
adopt the past decisions of other judges and
other writers. Plagiarism in the academe is
seen as motivated by the want to steal
others’ ideas to profit. In rendering
judgment, the ponente is tasked with
rendering one justly and with the right facts,
information, and research at hand. There is
no end goal of profiting or claiming originality
of words, only precise decisions for justice.
Dissenting opinions:
Justice Sereno- there is such a thing as
judicial plagiarism.
Other opinions made it clear that the
negligence was unbecoming of Justice del
Castillo. For such it is only right to punish
him.
UNETHICAL CONDUCT
Code of Professional Responsibility
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the
Court to be misled by any artifice.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly
misquote or misrepresent the contents of a
paper, the language or the argument of
opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or
authority, or knowingly cite as law a
provision already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that cases involving elections regardless of the
which has not been proved. penalties prescribed.

Hipos v. Bay (2009)

FACTS: Hipos et. al. were accused of crimes BASIC LEGAL CITATION
of rape and acts of lasciviousness. Judge Bay Citation is needed when one is:
convicted them. Their counsel petitioned for  Directly lifting a portion of work
a writ of mandamus compelling the judge to  Paraphrasing
dismiss the case with no grounds.  Summarizing
ISSUE: W/N the writ of mandamus is valid Incumbent Constitution:
PHIL. CONST. art VII, § I, ¶ 2.
HELD: NO. It is unbecoming of the counsel to
have resorted to it. The counsel of Hipos also
*NEVER use Id for the constitution.
plagiarized and distorted the jurisprudence
they cited for the petition.
Exercise:
.
Allied Banking Corporation v. CA (2003)
.
FACTS: Galanida was an assistant bank
.
manager for Allied Banking Corp. branch in
Cebu. He was reassigned to Bacolod City for
Repealed Constitutions:
a lower ranking position, with less pay, and
1935 PHIL. CONST. art. I § I (superseded 1971).
in a smaller branch compared to his last.
Labor Arbiter ruled that it was not
Exercise:
insubordination and demotion because board
.
and lodging will be paid for and ordered that
.
Galanida be dismissed. Labor Arbiter also
.
misquoted a decision in Dosch v. NLRC,
taking sections off the syllabus to make it
appear as the words of the Supreme Court.
Codes:
Counsel for petitioner also misquoted
An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other
jurisprudence.
Penal Laws [REVISED PENAL CODE], Act No.
3815, art. 2 (1932).
ISSUE: W/N Galanida was validly dismissed
An Act to Ordain and Institute the Civil Code
HELD: NO. There was no legal basis for the
of the Philippines [CIVIL CODE], Republic Act
dismissal.
No. 386 (1950).
COMELEC v. Nonay (1998)
FACTS: In a case where 2 teachers were *Subsequent citations:
REVISED PENAL CODE, arts. 171-173
found guilty of partisan political activities
and violating the Omnibus Election Code. Id.
The RTC’s jurisdiction over the case was Id. art. 180, ¶ 2.
questioned for any case involving acts
penalized with more than 6 years Exercise:
imprisonment. Judge Nonay did not read the .
opening sentence of Sec. 32 B.P. Blg. 129 in .
rendering his decision. And Counsel was .
careless in citing the name in one of the
cases (Naldeza instead of the original: Statutes:
NALDOZA) An Act Providing for the Recognition and Use
of Electronic Commercial and Non-
ISSUE: W/N RTCs have jurisdiction commercial Transactions and Documents,
Penalties for Unlawful Use Thereof and For
HELD: Under 268 of Omnibus Election Code, Other Purposes [e-Commerce Act of 2000],
RTC has exclusive jurisdiction on criminal Republic Act No. 8792, § 33 (2000).
Id. § 2. *Subsequent citations:
*Not small caps. e-Commerce Act of 2000, § 34.
Id.
If it underwent amendment: B.P. Blg. 22, §§ 3 & 5.
Id. §§ 1,3, & 5.
A Decree Instituting a Labor Code Thereby
Revising and Consolidating Labor and Social Exercise:
Laws to Afford Protection to Labor, Promote .
Employment and Human Resources .
Development and Insure Industrial Peace .
Based on Social Justice [LABOR CODE],
Presidential Decree No. 442, as Amended, § I
(1974).