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
FACT THAT WHICH HAS NOT YET BEEN PROVED.
IN THE MATTER OF CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM AGAINST
ASSOC. JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Per Curiam
(2011 decision)

FACTS:
 Petitioners seek reconsideration of the decisión of the Court dated October 12, 2010 that
dismissed their charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect against
Justice Mariano Del Castillo in connection with the decision he wrote for the Court in G.R. No.
162230, entitled Vinuya v. Romulo
 (2010 facts) The information alleges that in the April 28, 2010 decisión, regarding the petition of
Vinuya and the 70 members of the Malaya Lola’s Organization, penned by Justice Del Castillo,
passages from the following articles were copied without acknowledgement:
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)
- 2010 decision: Justice Del Castillo had no intent to plagiarize, the drafts contained
attributions; the researcher explained how it was Micrisoft Word’s fault through a
PowerPoint presentation; conclusion: Justice Del Castillo did an honest work
 In this motion for reconsideration, petitioners claim that the Court, through its 2010
decision, has legalized the commission of plagiarism in the Philippines

ISSUE: W/N the Court, through its 2010 decision, approved the commission of plagiarism? – NO

RATIO:
The Court said that such claim is absurd:
 Citing Bast and Samuels, the Court justified the 2010 decision by contending that the
judicial system is based on the doctrine of stare decisis… the judge is not expected then
to produce original scholarship in every respect.
 The court, in order to support its stance, differentiated plagiarism in the academe from
“plagiarism” in court
- Original scholarship is highly valued in the academe; this must be so since the writing
is intended to earn for the student an academic degree/honor/distinction; a stricter
policy (lack of intent is not a defense, i.e. Loyola Schools Code of Academic Integrity)
is adopted by schools because it seems that it would be easy for students to plead
ignorance or lack of malice
- In contrast, decisions of courts are not written to earn merit, accolade, or prize as an
original piece of work or art; judges issue decisions to resolve everyday conflicts
involving people of flesh and blood who ache for speedy justice or juridical beings
which have rights and obligations in law that need to be protected; the interest of
 society in written decisions is not that they are originally crafted but that they
are fair and correct in the context of the particular disputes involved. Justice,
not originality, form, and style, is the object of every decision of a court of law;
and, because of the need to be precise and correct, judges and practitioners alike, by
practice and tradition, usually lift passages from such precedents and writings, at
times omitting, without malicious intent, attributions to the originators
- Is this dishonesty? The Court answered in the negative. Quoting Duncan
Webb, the Court opined that, when practicing lawyers (which include
judges) write about the law, they effectively place their ideas, their
language, and their work in the public domain, to be affirmed, adopted,
criticized, or rejected; being in the public domain, other lawyers can thus
freely use these without fear of committing some wrong or incurring some
liability
- Joyce C. George in her Judicial Opinion Writing Handbook writes: A judge
writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or appellate, is exempted
from a charge of plagiarism even if ideas, words or phrases from a law
review article, novel thoughts published in a legal periodical or
language from a party’s brief are used without giving attribution,
because:
1. The judge is not writing a literary work
2. The purpose of the writing is to resolve a dispute
 Applying then the theory that every decision is a product of a judge’s creativity to Justice
Del Castillo’s case, the Court said:
- Justice Del Castillo had done an honest work (made his own analysis, formulated the
issues himself, discussed the laws involved, etc). True, Justice Del Castillo failed to
attribute to the foreign authors materials that he lifted from their works and used in
writing the decision for the Court in the Vinuya case. But, as the Court said, the
evidence as found by its Ethics Committee shows that the attribution to these authors
appeared in the beginning drafts of the decision (implication: he had no intention to
pass them off as his own). The Court also gave credence to the testimony of the
researcher (the Court found that she had no motive for omitting the attribution).

RULING: the Court DENIES petitioners motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.