LEGAL ETHICS | DIGESTS | 1D

Case No. <4>: <RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY 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">
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC March 8, 2011

FACTS:
This case is the disposition of the Court on the various submissions of the UP Law
Faculty in response to the Show Cause Resolution directing them to show cause why they
should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for violation of specific provisions of the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
The violations stemmed from the letter submitted by the respondent UP Law professors
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"
calling upon the Supreme Court to act on their Statement which they formally submitted, through
Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Dean Leonen), for the Court’s proper disposition. Respondents
invoked the defenses of freedom of speech and academic freedom upon their response to the
Show Cause Resolution.
The factual antecedent of the letter stemmed from allegations of plagiarism and
misrepresentation in the Supreme Court upon the promulgation of the decision in Vinuya, et al.
v. Executive Secretary penned by Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo (Justice Del Castillo).
The decision ruled against Vinuya et al representing the “Malaya Lolas” or the comfort women
during the Japan occupation. The letter contained a statement that the Supreme Court actually
misrepresented the conclusions of the work of Professors Evan Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent
entitled "A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens," the main source of the plagiarized text. In this
article they argue that the classification of the crimes of rape, torture, and sexual slavery as
crimes against humanity have attained the status of jus cogens, making it obligatory upon the
State to seek remedies on behalf of its aggrieved citizens. Yet, the Vinuya decision uses parts
of the same article to arrive at the contrary conclusion.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents UP Law professors have crossed the line of decency and
acceptable professional conduct and speech and violated the Rules of Court through improper
intervention or interference as third parties to a pending case.

PETITIONER (NAME): RESPONDENT (NAME):

SC RULING:
Yes, the Court finds that respondents UP Law professors, with the exception of one
respondent, have crossed the line of decency and acceptable professional conduct and speech
and violated the Rules of Court through improper intervention or interference as third parties to
a pending case.
The Court held that the manner of the criticism and the contumacious language by which
respondents, who are not parties nor counsels in the Vinuya case, have expressed their opinion
in favor of the petitioners in the said pending case for the "proper disposition" and consideration
of the Court that gave rise to said Show Cause Resolution. The said Resolution enumerated
the statements that the Court considered excessive and uncalled for under the circumstances
surrounding the issuance, publication, and later submission to this Court of the UP Law
Faculty’s Restoring Integrity Statement.
The concerning remarks pointed out by the Court includes the opening sentence of the
Statement which contemplates an institutional attack. It reads: “An extraordinary act of injustice
has again been committed against the brave Filipinas who had suffered abuse during a time of
war. The first paragraph concludes with a reference to the decision in Vinuya v. Executive
Secretary as a reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of
the land. x x x.”
Another insult to the members of the Court was aggravated by imputations of
deliberately delaying the resolution of the said case, its dismissal on the basis of "polluted
LEGAL ETHICS | DIGESTS | 1D
sources," the Court’s alleged indifference to the cause of petitioners [in the Vinuya case], as
well as the supposed alarming lack of concern of the members of the Court for even the most
basic values of decency and respect x x x.”
The Court finds the common compliance of the 35 respondent UP Law professors as
unsatisfactory and respondent UP Law professors are reminded of their lawyerly duty, under
Canons 1, 11 and 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to give due respect to the
Court and to refrain from intemperate and offensive language tending to influence the Court on
pending matters or to denigrate the Court and the administration of justice and warned that the
same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.