In re Matter of Plagiarism etc. against Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo A.M. No.

10-7-17-SC February 8, 2011 RESOLUTION Per Curiam: Facts: This is an administrative case filed by petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya et al., all members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, seeking for the reconsideration of the decision of the Court dated October 12, 2010 that dismissed their charges against Justice Mariano del Castillo in connection with the decision he wrote for the Court in Vinuya vs. Romula (case on comfort women). The alleged plagiarized parts were from three foreign authors whose works were cited in the decision. Issue: W/N AJ Del Castillo is guilty of plagiarism. Held: No. Definition of plagiarism in Webster is to steal and pass of as one's own, where malicious taking is inherent. Definition of plagiarism according to Blacks Law Dictionary: DELIBERATE and KNOWING presentation of another persons original ideas or creative expressions as ones own Court (C): Presentation must be DELIBERATE or PREMEDITATED and with ILL-INTENT In the case at bar, AJ del Castillo did not intend to copy the works of the authors without attribution. There is just mere oversight on the part of his legal researcher who accidentally deleted the footnotes in the final draft of the decision. Further, the C cannot think of any motive on the part of legal researcher for the omission hence it should be passed off as a mere error. This qualification on plagiarism is different in educational institutions because in the latter, intent is immaterial, rendering the student or person guilty regardless of ignorance or mere error. Why the difference in the element of plagiarism between academic works and judicial decisions? In academe, the originality of the writers thesis is valued as such work would grant him/her academic merits (diploma, degree etc.) In judicial decisions, the policy that intent is immaterial as the point of writing decisions is primarily for practical reasons (to settle disputes) By virtue of stare decisis, the judge is not expected to produce original scholarship in every respect [because] the strength of the decision lies in the soundness and general acceptance of the precedents and long held legal opinions it draws from. judicial decisions are not for personal merits but for public service; the interest of the society in written decisions is not that they are originally crafted but that they are fair and correct in the context of the particular dispute involved By writing about the law, the legal people (lawyers etc..) put their works in the public domain and subject their works to public scrutiny. Judges have implicit rights to use legal materials belonging in the public domain. In more than 100 years of judicial existence, no case on plagiarism has been filed. This is done by all in the legal profession and not just in our country.

DISSENTS Carpio: 1.) Court does not have jurisdiction to decide in administrative cases involving justices as this power is vested to Congress by virtue of Art. XI Sec.3 (1)/ Impeachment Clause *The concept of betrayal of public trust is a catchall phrase which includes administrative issues such as the case at bar. What can the Court do then if it does not have jurisdiction? a. The C can conduct investigation then recommend the filing of impeachment complaint to the House of Representatives; or b. It can try based on contempt of court *The power of the SC is administrative as regards all the courts (including SC itself) and for admin cases such as this it can only exercise jurisdiction over judges of lower courts. 2.) Judge must comply with the Law on Copyright a. Copying works of the government- does not need attribution because public domain/document Actionable only when done to mislead etc b. Copying pleadings of parties- does not need attribution since it is implied that pleadings shall really be used in resolving the case Actionable only when done to mislead etc c. Copying works from textbooks, journals and other non-government works- depends on the nature of the passages copied If work is copyrighted then actionable for violation of Section 193 of the Intellectual Property Code *The author has both moral and economic rights. The economic right may be waived/ disregard but in the case at bar the moral right should be upheld. Moral right has two elements: 1. Right to attribution/ Paternity- right to be recognized as the author/originator 2. Right to Integrity- power to distort or misrepresent There must be no distinction between the application of copyright laws in the academe and judiciary. 3.) By reason of Art. 19 (Principle of Abuse of Rights) of the New Civil Code, AJ del Castillo can still be held liable. Carpio-Morales: Same as Carpios but adds that the legal researcher should be identified (because a similar case had the legal researcher identified) and that he/she should be charged with simple neglect of duty. Sereno: Judges and their legal researched are not being asked to be academics; only to be diligent and honest. [Ed: Justice Serenos dissent compared the decision and the actual works of the authors (tabularized) and she also defended herself from accusations of plagiarism claimed by Justice Abad in his separate concurring opinion. ]