8/2/2019 Re Letter of the UP Faculty (DAVE)

1/2

Re: Letter of the UP Faculty Entitled Restoring Integrity: A Statement bythe Faculty of the UP College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and

Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court

FACTS

Attys. Harry Roque, Jr. and Romel Bagares, lawyers for the comfort womenwho were the subject of the case Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary, hurledallegations of plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, author of the ponenciafor the said case.

Authors of the articles that were allegedly plagiarized sent letters to theCourt, asking for a response to the alleged use of their articles without properreferencing, and the apparent misuse and twisting of their theses

The Court formed the Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards toinvestigate the claims

Faculty members of the UP College of Law released a statement regardingthe issue, entitled Restoring Integrity

The Court directed the professors to show cause why they should not bedisciplined as members of the Bar for violation of Canons 1, 11 and 13 andRules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUES

I. Does the Show Cause Resolution deny the professors their freedom ofexpression or academic freedom?NO

It was neither the criticism of the Vinuyadecision nor the charge ofplagiarism that motivated the Resolution, but the manner of the criticism andthe contumacious language by which respondents expressed their opinion.

Respondents not only expressed a belief that Justice Del Castillo was guilty ofplagiarism but rather, they expressed that belief as not only as an establishedfact, but a truth, when it was of public knowledge that there was an ongoinginvestigation precisely to determine the truth of such allegations. The Courtconsidered some parts of the letter an institutional attack on the SC based onthe language used:

o An extraordinary act of injustice has again been committed againstthe brave Filipinas who had suffered abuse during a time of war.

o The first paragraph concludes with a reference to the decision inVinuya v. Executive Secretaryas a reprehensible act of dishonestyand misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land.

o The insult to the members of the Court was aggravated byimputations of deliberately delaying the resolution of the said case, itsdismissal on the basis of polluted sources, the Courts allegedindifference to the cause of petitioners [in the Vinuyacase], as well asthe supposed alarming lack of concern of the members of the Courtfor even the most basic values of decency and respect.

The Court acknowledged the need for freedom of expression in a democraticgovernment, but held that this should be balanced balanced against theequally primordial concern that the independence of the Judiciary beprotected from due influence or interference. It quoted from the Salcedodecision, which stated that: As a member of the bar and an officer of

this court, Attorney Vicente J. Francisco, as any attorney, is in dutybound to uphold its dignity and authority and to defend its integrity,

8/2/2019 Re Letter of the UP Faculty (DAVE)

2/2

not only because it has conferred upon him the high privilege, not aright (Malcolm, Legal Ethics, 158 and 160), of being what he now is: apriest of justice (In reThatcher, 80 Ohio St. Rep., 492, 669), but alsobecause in so doing, he neither creates nor promotes distrust in theadministration of justice, and prevents anybody from harboring and

encouraging discontent which, in many cases, is the source ofdisorder, thus undermining the foundation upon which rests that bulwarkcalled judicial power to which those who are aggrieved turn for protectionand relief.

The Court reiterated CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain therespect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similarconduct by others, and Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.

This is not a violation of their academic freedom because the constitutionalright to freedom of expression of members of the Bar may be limited by theirethical duties as lawyers to give due respect to the courts and to uphold the

publics faith in the legal profession and the justice system. The reason thatfreedom of expression may be so delimited in the case of lawyers applieswith greater force to the academic freedom of law professors.

II. Do the good faith and noble motives of Respondents excuse them fromliability?- NO

No matter how firm a lawyers conviction in the righteousness of his causethere is simply no excuse for denigrating the courts and engaging in publicbehavior that tends to put the courts and the legal profession intodisrepute. The validity of their views regarding the plagiarism issue in theVinuyacase was wholly immaterial to their liability for contumacious speech

and conduct. The Court doubted the intentions of the professors when theybranded the SC as, among others, callous, dishonest and lacking in concernfor the basic values of decency and respect. The Court failed to see how itcould ennoble the profession if it allowed respondents to send a signal totheir students that the only way to effectively plead their cases and persuadeothers to their point of view is to be offensive.

The foreign authors letters underscore the universality of the tenet that legalprofessionals must deal with each other in good faith and due respect. Theycompared the language used here to that employed by the UP Faculty, andheld that the former was the proper way to question the Court.

The Court also doubted the claim that the intent of the letter was to initiate aconstructive solution to the issue of plagiarism because it was delivered tothe Media before it was handed to the Court.

HOLDINGThese 35 respondent law professors are REMINDED of their lawyerly duty, underCanons 1, 11 and 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to give due respectto the Court and to refrain from intemperate and offensive language tending toinfluence the Court on pending matters or to denigrate the Court and theadministration of justice and warned that the same or similar act in the future shallbe dealt with more severely.