In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc.

,
Against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo

A.M. NO. 10-7-17-SC, FEBRUARY 8, 2011

FACTS

The Malaya Lolas Organization received an adverse decision in the

case Vinuya vs Romulo decided by the Supreme Court on April 28,
2010. The Malaya Lolas Organization questioned the said decision
due to the irregularity in the writing of the text of the decision and
filed an administrative disciplinary case against Supreme Court
Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo.
Petitioner’s Argument

• alleged that Associate Justice Del Castillo committed plagiarism,

twisted true intent of the cited materials and gross neglect for failing
to attribute lifted passages from three foreign authors.
ISSUE

Whether or not plagiarism is applicable to decisions promulgated by

the Supreme Court.
Provision Subject to Statutory Construction

Plagiarism

says webster, is to steal and pass off as ones own ideas or words
of another

Black Law Dictionary (quoted by the court) “the deliberate and

knowing presentation of another person’s original ideas or creative
expressions as ones own.”
Ruling
No. It has been a long standing practice in this jurisdiction not to cite or acknowledge
the originators of passages and views found in the Supreme Court’s decisions. These
omissions are true for many of the decisions that have been penned and are being
penned daily by magistrates from the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of
Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Courts nationwide and with them, the municipal trial
courts and other first level courts. Never in the judiciary’s more than 100 years of
history has the lack of attribution been regarded and demeaned as plagiarism. As put by
one author (acknowledged by the Court), Joyce C. George from her Judicial Opinion
Writing Handbook:

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. Thus
judges are free to use whatever sources they deem appropriate to resolve
the matter before them, without fear of reprisal. This exemption applies to
judicial writings intended to decide cases for two reasons: the judge is not
writing a literary work and, more importantly, the purpose of the writing
is to resolve a dispute. As a result, judges adjudicating cases are not
subject to a claim of legal plagiarism.
Further, as found by the Supreme Court, the omission of the acknowledgment by Justice
del Castillo of the three foreign authors arose from a clerical error. It was shown before
the Supreme Court that the researcher who finalized the draft written by Justice del
Castillo accidentally deleted the citations/acknowledgements; that in all, there is still an
intent to acknowledge and not take such passages as that of Justice del Castillo’s own.