Allegation of Plagiarism

8/12/2019 Allegation of Plagiarism

1/22

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC March 8, 2011

RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTTLE! "RESTORN# NTE#RTY: A STATEMENT $Y THE FACULTY OF THE UN%ERSTY OFTHE PHLPPNES COLLE#E OF LAW ON THE ALLE#ATONS OF PLA#ARSM AN! MSREPRESENTATON N THE SUPREME COURT"

D E C I S I O N

LEONAR!O-!E CASTRO, J.:

For disposition of the Court are the various subissions of the !" respondent la# professors$in response to the Resolution dated October $%& '($()the Sho# Cause Resolution*& directin+ the to sho# cause #h, the, should not be disciplined as ebers of the Bar for violation of specificprovisions of the Code of Professional Responsibilit, enuerated therein-

At the outset& it ust be stressed that the Sho# Cause Resolution clearl, doc.ets this as an adinistrative atter& not a special civil action for indirectcontept under Rule "$ of the Rules of Court& contrar, to the dissentin+ opinion of Associate /ustice Maria 0ourdes P- A- Sereno )/ustice Sereno* tothe said October $%& '($( Sho# Cause Resolution- Neither is this a disciplinar, proceedin+ +rounded on an alle+edl, irre+ularl, concluded findin+ ofindirect contept as intiated b, Associate /ustice Conchita Carpio Morales )/ustice Morales* in her dissentin+ opinions to both the October $%& '($(

Sho# Cause Resolution and the present decision-

1ith the nature of this case as purel, a bar disciplinar, proceedin+ firl, in ind& the Court finds that #ith the e2ception of one respondent #hosecopliance #as ade3uate and another #ho anifested he #as not a eber of the Philippine Bar& the subitted e2planations& bein+ ere denialsand4or tan+ential to the issues at hand& are decidedl, unsatisfactor,- 5he proffered defenses even ore ur+entl, behoove this Court to call theattention of respondent la# professors& #ho are ebers of the Bar& to the relationship of their duties as such under the Code of ProfessionalResponsibilit, to their civil ri+hts as citi6ens and acadeics in our free and deocratic republic-

5he provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibilit, involved in this case are as follo#s7

CANON $ 8 A la#,er shall uphold the constitution& obe, the la#s of the land and proote respect for la# and le+al processes-

R90E $-(' : A la#,er shall not counsel or abet activities aied at defiance of the la# or at lessenin+ confidence inthe le+al s,ste-

CANON $( : A la#,er o#es candor& fairness and +ood faith to the court-

Rule $(-($ : A la#,er shall not do an, falsehood& nor consent to the doin+ of an, in court; nor shall he islead& orallo# the Court to be isled b, an, artifice-

Rule $(-(' : A la#,er shall not .no#in+l, is3uote or isrepresent the contents of paper& the lan+ua+e or thear+uent of opposin+ counsel& or the te2t of a decision or authorit,& or .no#in+l, cite as la# a provision alread,rendered inoperative b, repeal or aendent& or assert as a fact that #hich has not been proved-

Rule $(-(! : A la#,er shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not isuse the to defeat the ends of e2planations #hether or not respondent ebers of the Bar have crossed the line of decenc, andacceptable professional conduct and speech and violated the Rules of Court throu+h iproper intervention or interference as third parties to a pendin+case- Preliinaril,& it should be stressed that it #as respondents theselves #ho called upon the Supree Court to act on their Stateent& '#hich the,forall, subitted& throu+h Dean Marvic M-?-F- 0eonen )Dean 0eonen*& for the Court>s proper disposition- Considerin+ the defenses of freedo ofspeech and acadeic freedo invo.ed b, the respondents& it is #orth discussin+ here that the le+al reasonin+ used in the past b, this Court to rulethat freedo of e2pression is not a defense in adinistrative cases a+ainst la#,ers for usin+ inteperate speech in open court or in court subissions
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt1


2/22

can siilarl, be applied to respondents> invocation of acadeic freedo- Indeed& it is precisel, because respondents are not erel, la#,ers butla#,ers #ho teach la# and ould the inds of ,oun+ aspirin+ attorne,s that respondents> o#n non:observance of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibilit,& even if purportedl, otivated b, the purest of intentions& cannot be i+nored nor +lossed over b, this Court-

5o full, appreciate the +rave repercussions of respondents> actuations& it is apropos to revisit the factual antecedents of this case-

BAC@RO9ND OF 5E CASE

Antecedent Facts and Proceedin+s

On April '& '($(& the ponencia of Associate /ustice Mariano del Castillo )/ustice Del Castillo* in ?inu,a& et al- v- E2ecutive Secretar, )-R- No-$''!(* #as proul+ated- On Ma, !$& '($(& the counsel!for ?inu,a& et al- )the Mala,a 0olas*& filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the ?inu,adecision& raisin+ solel, the follo#in+ +rounds7

I- Our o#n constitutional and s forei+npolic, prero+atives are virtuall, unliited; precisel,& under the relevant S AR9MEN5S FOR DISMISSIN 5EINS5AN5 PE5I5ION 1EN IN 5R95& 5E P0AIARIED SO9RCES E?EN MA@E A S5RON CASE FOR 5E PE5I5ION>S C0AIMS- "

5he, also claied that JiKn this controvers,& the evidence bears out the fact not onl, of e2tensive pla+iaris but of )sic* also of t#istin+ the true intentsof the pla+iari6ed sources b, the ponencia to suit the ar+uents of the assailed /ud+ent for den,in+ the Petition-

Accordin+ to Att,s- Ro3ue and Ba+ares& the #or.s alle+edl, pla+iari6ed in the ?inu,a decision #ere nael,7 )$* Evan /- Criddle and Evan Fo2:

Decent>s article A Fiduciar, 5heor, of /us Co+ens;%

)'* Christian /- 5as> boo. Enforcin+ Er+a Ones Obli+ations in International 0a#;$(

and )!*Mar. Ellis> article Brea.in+ the Silence7 On Rape as an International Crie-$$

On the sae da, as the filin+ of the Suppleental Motion for Reconsideration on /ul, $%& '($(&


3/22

In a letter dated /ul, '!& '($(& another purportedl, pla+iari6ed author in the ?inu,a decision& Dr- Mar. Ellis& #rote the Court& to #it7

Hour onours7

I #rite concernin+ a ost delicate issue that has coe to , attention in the last fe# da,s-

Much as I re+ret to raise this atter before ,our esteeed Court& I a copelled& as a 3uestion of the inte+rit, of , #or. as an acadeic and as an

advocate of huan ri+hts and huanitarian la#& to ta.e e2ception to the possible unauthori6ed use of , la# revie# article on rape as an internationalcrie in ,our esteeed Court>s /ud+ent in the case of ?inu,a et al- v- E2ecutive Secretar, et al- )-R- No- $''!(& /ud+ent of ' April '($(*-

M, attention #as called to the /ud+ent and the issue of possible pla+iaris b, the Philippine chapter of the Southeast Asia Media 0e+al DefenceInitiative )SEAM0DI*&$%an affiliate of the 0ondon:based Media 0e+al Defence Initiative )M0DI*& #here I sit as trustee-

In particular& I a concerned about a lar+e part of the e2tensive discussion in footnote =& pp- '":'& of the said /ud+ent of ,our esteeed Court- Ia also concerned that ,our esteeed Court a, have isread the ar+uents I ade in the article and eplo,ed the for cross purposes- 5his#ould be ironic since the article #as #ritten precisel, to ar+ue for the appropriate le+al reed, for victis of #ar cries& +enocide& and cries a+ainsthuanit,-

I believe a full cop, of , article as published in the Case 1estern Reserve /ournal of International 0a# in '(( has been ade available to ,ouresteeed Court- I trust that ,our esteeed Court #ill ta.e the tie to carefull, stud, the ar+uents I ade in the article-

I #ould appreciate receivin+ a response fro ,our esteeed Court as to the issues raised b, this letter-

1ith respect&

)S+d-*Dr- Mar. Ellis'(

In Meorandu Order No- !=:'($( issued on /ul, '"& '($(& the Court fored the Coittee on Ethics and Ethical Standards )the Ethics Coittee*pursuant to Section $!& Rule ' of the Internal Rules of the Supree Court- In an En Banc Resolution also dated /ul, '"& '($(& the Court referred the/ul, ''& '($( letter of /ustice Del Castillo to the Ethics Coittee- 5he atter #as subse3uentl, doc.eted as A-M- No- $(:":$":SC-

On Au+ust '& '($(& the Ethics Coittee re3uired Att,s- Ro3ue and Ba+ares to coent on the letter of /ustice Del Castillo- '$

On Au+ust %& '($(& a stateent dated /ul, '"& '($(& entitled Restorin+ Inte+rit,7 A Stateent b, the Facult, of the 9niversit, of the PhilippinesColle+e of 0a# on the Alle+ations of Pla+iaris and Misrepresentation in the Supree Court )the Stateent*& #as posted in Ne#sbrea.>s #ebsite''and on Att,- Ro3ue>s blo+-'!A report re+ardin+ the stateent also appeared on various on:line ne#s sites& such as the MA Ne#s 5?'and the SunStar'=sites& on the sae date- 5he stateent #as li.e#ise posted at the 9niversit, of the Philippines Colle+e of 0a#>s bulletin board alle+edl, onAu+ust $(& '($('and at said colle+e>s #ebsite-'"

On Au+ust $$& '($(& Dean 0eonen subitted a cop, of the Stateent of the 9niversit, of the Philippines Colle+e of 0a# Facult, )9P 0a# facult,* tothe Court& throu+h Chief /ustice Renato C- Corona )Chief /ustice Corona*- 5he cover letter dated Au+ust $(& '($( of Dean 0eonen read7

5he onorableSupree Court of the Republic of the Philippines

5hrou+h7 on- Renato C- CoronaChief /ustice

Sub


4/22

)Ephases supplied-*

5he cop, of the Stateent attached to the above:3uoted letter did not contain the actual si+natures of the alle+ed si+natories but onl, stated thenaes of !" 9P 0a# professors #ith the notation )SD-* appearin+ beside each nae- For convenient reference& the te2t of the 9P 0a# facult,Stateent is reproduced here7

RESTORN# NTE#RTY

A S5A5EMEN5 BH 5E FAC905H OF5E 9NI?ERSI5H OF 5E PI0IPPINES CO00EE OF 0A1

ON 5E A00EA5IONS OF P0AIARISM AND MISREPRESEN5A5IONIN 5E S9PREME CO9R5

An e2traordinar, act of ins #or. as one>s o#n- In the field of #ritin+& it is cheatin+at best& and stealin+ at #orst- It constitutes a ta.in+ of soeone else>s ideas and e2pressions& includin+ all the effort and creativit, that #ent intocoittin+ such ideas and e2pressions into #ritin+& and then a.in+ it appear that such ideas and e2pressions #ere ori+inall, created b, the ta.er- Itis dishonest,& pure and siple- A naes and the publications fro #hich the, cae& the thin+ spea.s for itself-

So far there have been unsatisfactor, responses fro the ponente of this case and the spo.esan of the Court-

It is ar+ued& for e2aple& that the inclusion of the footnotes fro the ori+inal articles is a reference to the Lpriar,> sources relied upon- 5his cursor,e2planation is not acceptable& because the ori+inal authors> #ritin+s and the effort the, put into findin+ and suari6in+ those priar, sources areprecisel, the sub #or. of or+ani6in+ and anal,6in+ thosepriar, sources-

It is also ar+ued that the Mebers of the Court cannot be e2pected to be failiar #ith all le+al and scholarl,


5/22

3uest for


6/22

LECTURERS

&S#!.' (OSE #ERAR!O A. ALAMPAY &S#!.' (OSE C. LAURETA

&S#!.' ARTHUR P. AUTEA &S#!.' !NA !. LUCENARO

&S#!.' ROSA MARA (. $AUTSTA &S#!.' OWEN (. LYNCH

&S#!.' MAR) R. $OCO$O &S#!.' ANTONO M. SANTOS

&S#!.' !AN P. CALCA &S#!.' %CENTE %. MEN!O*A

&S#!.' TRSTAN A. CATN!# &S#!.' RO!OLFO NOEL S. +UM$O

&S#!.' SAN!RA MARE O. CORONEL &S#!.' #MELEEN FAYE $. TOM$OC

&S#!.' ROSARO O. #ALLO &S#!.' NCHOLAS FEL L. TY

&S#!.' CONCEPCON L. (AR!ELE*A &S#!.' E%ALYN #. URSUA

&S#!.' ANTONO #.M. LA %A &S#!.' RAUL T. %AS+UE*

&S#!.' CARNA C. LAFORTE*A&S#!.' SUSAN !. %LLANUE%A'%

)9nderscorin+ supplied-*

Mean#hile& in a letter dated Au+ust $& '($(& Prof- Christian /- 5as ade .no#n his sentients on the alle+ed pla+iaris issue to the Court- !(1e3uote Prof- 5as> letter here7

las+o#& $ Au+ust '($(

?inu,a& et al- v- E2ecutive Secretar, et al- )-R- No- $''!(*

on- Renato C- Corona& Chief /ustice

Hour E2cellenc,&

M, nae is Christian /- 5as& and I a a professor of international la# at the 9niversit, of las+o#- I a #ritin+ to ,ou in relation to the use of one of, publications in the above:entioned


7/22

Sincerel, ,ours

)S+d-*Christian /- 5as!$

In the course of the subission of Att,- Ro3ue and Att,- Ba+ares> e2hibits durin+ the Au+ust '& '($( hearin+ in the ethics case a+ainst /ustice DelCastillo& the Ethics Coittee noted that E2hibit / )a cop, of the Restorin+ Inte+rit, Stateent* #as not si+ned but erel, reflected the naes ofcertain facult, ebers #ith the letters )SD-* beside the naes- 5hus& the Ethics Coittee directed Att,- Ro3ue to present the si+ned cop, of the

said Stateent #ithin three da,s fro the Au+ust ' hearin+-!'

It #as upon copliance #ith this directive that the Ethics Coittee #as +iven a cop, of the si+ned 9P 0a# Facult, Stateent that sho#ed on thesi+nature pa+es the naes of the full roster of the 9P 0a# Facult,& $ facult, ebers in all- Indubitable fro the actual si+ned cop, of the Stateent#as that onl, !" of the $ facult, ebers appeared to have si+ned the sae- o#ever& the !" actual si+natories to the Stateent did not includeforer Supree Court Associate /ustice ?icente ?- Mendo6a )/ustice Mendo6a* as represented in the previous copies of the Stateent subitted b,Dean 0eonen and Att,- Ro3ue- It also appeared that Att,- Mi+uel R- Arovit )Att,- Arovit* si+ned the Stateent althou+h his nae #as not includedaon+ the si+natories in the previous copies subitted to the Court- 5hus& the total nuber of ostensible si+natories to the Stateent reained at !"-

5he Ethics Coittee referred this atter to the Court en banc since the sae Stateent& havin+ been forall, subitted b, Dean 0eonen on Au+ust$$& '($(& #as alread, under consideration b, the Court-!!

In a Resolution dated October $%& '($(& the Court en banc ade the follo#in+ observations re+ardin+ the 9P 0a# Facult, Stateent7

Notabl,& #hile the stateent #as eant to reflect the educators> opinion on the alle+ations of pla+iaris a+ainst /ustice Del Castillo& the, treated suchalle+ation not onl, as an established fact& but a truth- In particular& the, e2pressed dissatisfaction over /ustice Del Castillo>s e2planation on ho# he

cited the priar, sources of the 3uoted portions and ,et arrived at a contrar, conclusion to those of the authors of the articles supposedl, pla+iari6ed-

Be,ond this& ho#ever& the stateent bore certain rear.s #hich raise concern for the Court- 5he openin+ sentence alone is a +ri preable to theinstitutional attac. that la, ahead- It reads7

An e2traordinar, act of ins alle+ed indifference to the cause of petitioners Jin the ?inu,a caseK& as #ell as the supposed alarin+ lac. of concernof the ebers of the Court for even the ost basic values of decenc, and respect-!2 2 2- )9nderscorin+ ours-*

In the sae Resolution& the Court #ent on to state that7

1hile ost a+ree that the ri+ht to critici6e the


8/22

Suaries of the Pleadin+s Filed b, Respondents in Response to the October $%& '($( Sho# Cause Resolution

On Noveber $%& '($(& #ithin the e2tension for filin+ +ranted b, the Court& respondents filed the follo#in+ pleadin+s7

)$* Copliance dated Noveber $& '($( b, counsels for != of the !" respondents& e2cludin+ Prof- O#en 0,nch and Prof-Raul 5- ?as3ue6& in relation to the char+e of violation of Canons $& $$ and $! and Rules $-(' and $$-(= of the Code ofProfessional Responsibilit,;

)'* Copliance and Reservation dated Noveber $& '($( b, Prof- Rosa Maria 5- /uan:Bautista in relation to the sae char+ein par- )$*;

)!* Copliance dated Noveber $%& '($( b, counsel for Prof- Raul 5- ?as3ue6 in relation to the sae char+e in par- )$*;

)* Copliance dated Noveber $%& '($( b, counsels for Dean 0eonen& in relation to the char+e of violation of Canon $(&Rules $(-($& $(-(' and $(-(!; and

)=* Manifestation dated Noveber $%& '($( b, counsel for Prof- O#en 0,nch-

Coon Copliance of != Respondents )E2cludin+ Prof- O#en 0,nch and Prof- Raul ?as3ue6*

5hirt,:five )!=* of the respondent 9P 0a# professors filed on Noveber $%& '($( a coon copliance #hich #as si+ned b, their respective counsels)the Coon Copliance*- In the Preface of said Coon Copliance& respondents stressed that Jthe,K issued the Restorin+ Inte+rit, Stateent inthe dischar+e of the Lsolen duties and trust reposed upon the as teachers in the profession of la#&> and as ebers of the Bar to spea. out on aatter of public concern and one that is of vital interest to the- !%5he, li.e#ise alle+ed that the, acted #ith the purest of intentions and pointed outthat none of the #as involved either as part, or counsel(in the ?inu,a case- Further& respondents note #ith concern that the Sho# CauseResolution>s findin+s and conclusions #ere a pre call in the Stateent for the Court to provide clear and concise +uidance to the Bench and Bar to ensure onl,the hi+hest 3ualit, of le+al research and #ritin+ in ad


9/22

)c* Respondents> belief that the, are bein+ sin+led out b, the Court #hen others have li.e#ise spo.en on the pla+iarisissue

In the Coon Copliance& respondents li.e#ise asserted that the pla+iaris and isrepresentation alle+ations arele+itiate public issues-==5he, identified various published reports and opinions& in a+reeent #ith and in opposition to thestance of respondents& on the issue of pla+iaris& specificall,7

)i* Ne#sbrea. report on /ul, $%& '($( b, Aries Rufo and Purple Roero;=

)ii* Colun of Raon 5ulfo #hich appeared in the Philippine Dail, In3uirer on /ul, '& '($(; ="

)iii* Editorial of the Philippine Dail, In3uirer published on /ul, '=& '($(;=

)iv* 0etter dated /ul, ''& '($( of /ustice Del Castillo published in the Philippine Star on /ul, !(& '($(; =%

)v* Colun of Forer Intellectual Propert, Office Director eneral Adrian Cristobal& /r- published in the BusinessMirror on Au+ust =& '($(;(

)vi* Colun of Forer Chief /ustice Arteio Pan+aniban published in the Philippine Dail, In3uirer on Au+ust &'($(;$

)vii* Ne#s report re+ardin+ Senator Francis Pan+ilinan>s call for the resi+nation of /ustice Del Castillo published inthe Dail, 5ribune and the Manila Standard 5oda, on /ul, !$& '($(;'

)viii* Ne#s reports re+ardin+ the stateent of Dean Cesar ?illanueva of the Ateneo de Manila 9niversit, School of0a# on the calls for the resi+nation of /ustice Del Castillo published in 5he Manila Bulletin& the Philippine Star andthe Business Mirror on Au+ust $$& '($(;!

)i2* Ne#s report on e2pressions of support for /ustice Del Castillo fro a forer dean of the Paantasan n+0un+sod n+ Ma,nila& the Philippine Constitutional Association& the /ud+es Association of Bulacan and theInte+rated Bar of the Philippines G Bulacan Chapter published in the Philippine Star on Au+ust $& '($(; and

)2* 0etter of the Dean of the 0iceo de Ca+a,an 9niversit, Colle+e of 0a# published in the Philippine Dail, In3uireron Au+ust $(& '($(-=

In vie# of the fore+oin+& respondents alle+ed that this Court has sin+led the out for sanctions and the char+e in the Sho#Cause Resolution dated October $%& '($( that the, a, have violated specific canons of the Code of ProfessionalResponsibilit, is unfair and #ithout basis-

)d* Freedo of e2pression

In para+raphs ' to !( of the Coon Copliance& respondents briefl, discussed their position that in issuin+ their Stateent&the, should be seen as not onl, to be perforin+ their duties as ebers of the Bar& officers of the court& and teachers of la#&but also as citi6ens of a deocrac, #ho are constitutionall, protected in the e2ercise of free speech-In support of thiscontention& the, cited 9nited States v- Bustos&"In re7 Att,- ?icente Raul Alacen&and In the Matter of Petition for Declarator,Relief Re7 Constitutionalit, of Republic Act (& on6ales v- Coission on Elections-%

)e* Acadeic freedo

In para+raphs !$ to ! of the Coon Copliance& respondents asserted that their Stateent #as also issued in the e2ercise of their acadeicfreedo as teachers in an institution of hi+her learnin+- 5he, relied on Section = of the 9niversit, of the Philippines Charter of '(( #hich providedthat JtKhe national universit, has the ri+ht and responsibilit, to e2ercise acadeic freedo- 5he, li.e#ise adverted to arcia v- 5he Facult, AdissionCoittee& 0o,ola School of 5heolo+,"(#hich the, claied reco+ni6ed the e2tent and breadth of such freedo as to encoura+e a free and health,discussion and counication of a facult, eber>s field of stud, #ithout fear of reprisal- It is respondents> vie# that had the, reained silent on thepla+iaris issue in the ?inu,a decision the, #ould have coproised JtheirK inte+rit, and credibilit, as teachers; Jtheir silenceK #ould have created aculture and +eneration of students& professionals& even la#,ers& #ho #ould lac. the copetence and discipline for research and pleadin+; or& #orse&JthatK their silence #ould have counicated to the public that pla+iaris and isrepresentation are inconse3uential atters and that intellectualinte+rit, has no bearin+ or relevance to one>s conduct-"$

In closin+& respondents> Coon Copliance e2horted this Court to consider the follo#in+ portion of the dissentin+ opinion of /ustice eor+e A-Malcol in Salcedo v- ernande6&"'to #it7

Respect for the courts can better be obtained b, follo#in+ a cal and ipartial course fro the bench than b, an attept to copel respect for the


10/22

On the atter of the reliefs to #hich respondents believe the, are entitled& the Coon Copliance stated& thus7

1EREFORE7

A- Respondents& as citi6ens of a deocrac,& professors of la#& ebers of the Bar and officers of the Court& respectfull, pra,that7

$- the fore+oin+ be noted; and

'- the Court reconsider and reverse its adverse findin+s in the Sho# Cause Resolution& includin+ its conclusionsthat respondents have7 JaK breached their obli+ation as la# professors and officers of the Court to be the first touphold the di+nit, and authorit, of this Court& and not to proote distrust in the adinistration of constitutional ri+ht to freedo of e2pression that can onl, becurtailed #hen there is +rave and iinent dan+er to public safet,& public orale& public health or other le+itiate public interest- "

Copliance of Prof- Raul 5- ?as3ue6

On Noveber $%& '($(& Prof- Raul 5- ?as3ue6 )Prof- ?as3ue6* filed a separate Copliance b, re+istered ail )the ?as3ue6 Copliance*- In saidCopliance& Prof- ?as3ue6 narrated the circustances surroundin+ his si+nin+ of the Stateent- e alle+ed that the ?inu,a decision #as a topic ofconversation aon+ the 9P 0a# facult, earl, in the first seester )of acadeic ,ear '($(:$$* because it reportedl, contained citations not properl,attributed to the sources; that he #as sho#n a cop, of the Stateent b, a cler. of the Office of the Dean on his #a, to his class; and that& a+reein+ inprinciple #ith the ain thee advanced b, the Stateent& he si+ned the sae in utost +ood faith- "%

In response to the directive fro this Court to e2plain #h, he should not be disciplined as a eber of the Bar under the Sho# Cause Resolution&Prof- ?as3ue6 also too. the position that a la#,er has the ri+ht& li.e all citi6ens in a deocratic societ,& to coent on acts of public officers- e invitedthe attention of the Court to the follo#in+ authorities7 )a* In re7 ?icente Sotto;()b* In re7 Att,- ?icente Raul Alacen;$and )c* a discussion appearin+ inAerican /urisprudence )A/ur* 'd-'e clais that he never had an, intention to undul, influence& nor entertained an, illusion that he could orshould influence& Jthe CourtK in its disposition of the ?inu,a case!and that attac.in+ the inte+rit, of Jthe CourtK #as the farthest thin+ on respondent>s
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt79http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt80http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt80http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt81http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt81http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt81http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt82http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt82http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt82http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt83http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt83http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt83http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt74http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt75http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt76http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt77http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt78http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt79http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt80http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt81http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt82http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt83


11/22

ind #hen he si+ned the Stateent- 9nli.e his collea+ues& #ho #ish to ipress upon this Court the purported hoo+eneit, of the vie#s on #hatconstitutes pla+iaris& Prof- ?as3ue6 stated in his Copliance that7

$!- Before this onorable Court rendered its Decision dated $' October '($(& soe espoused the vie# that #illful and deliberate intent to coitpla+iaris is an essential eleent of the sae- Others& li.e respondent& #ere of the opinion that pla+iaris is coitted re+ardless of the intent of theperpetrator& the #a, it has al#a,s been vie#ed in the acadee- 5his uncertaint, ade the issue a fair topic for acadeic discussion in the Colle+e-No#& this onorable Court has ruled that pla+iaris presupposes deliberate intent to steal another>s #or. and to pass it off as one>s o#n- =)Ephasessupplied-*

Also in contrast to his collea+ues& Prof- ?as3ue6 #as #illin+ to concede that he i+ht have been reiss in correctl, assessin+ the effects of suchlan+ua+e Jin the StateentK and could have been ore careful-e ends his discussion #ith a respectful subission that #ith his e2planation& he hasfaithfull, coplied #ith the Sho# Cause Resolution and that the Court #ill rule that he had not in an, anner violated his oath as a la#,er and officerof the Court-

Separate Copliance of Dean 0eonen re+ardin+ the char+e of violation of Canon $( in relation to his subission of a du, of the 9P 0a# Facult,Stateent to this Court

In his Copliance& Dean 0eonen claied that there #ere three drafts4versions of the 9P 0a# Facult, Stateent& #hich he described as follo#s7

Restorin+ Inte+rit, I #hich bears the entire roster of the facult, of the 9P Colle+e of 0a# in its si+nin+ pa+es& and the actualsi+natures of the thirt,:seven )!"* facult, ebers subs staff then circulated Restorin+ Inte+rit, I aon+ the ebers of the facult,- Soe facult, ebers visitedthe Dean>s Office to si+n the docuent or had it brou+ht to their classroos in the Colle+e of 0a#& or to their offices orresidences- Still other facult, ebers #ho& for one reason or another& #ere unable to si+n Restorin+ Inte+rit, I at that tie&nevertheless conve,ed to Dean 0eonen their assurances that the, #ould si+n as soon as the, could ana+e-

'-=- Soetie in the second #ee. of Au+ust& s nae as aon+ the si+natories in Restorin+ Inte+rit, II #hen in fact he did not si+n Restorin+Inte+rit, I& Dean 0eonen attributed the ista.e to a iscounication involvin+ his adinistrative officer- In his Copliance& he narrated that7
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt84http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt85http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt85http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt86http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt86http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt87http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt87http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt88http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt88http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt89http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt89http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt90http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt84http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt85http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt86http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt87http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt88http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt89http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt90


12/22

'-"- 9pon bein+ presented #ith a draft of Restorin+ Inte+rit, II #ith the reforatted si+nin+ pa+es& Dean 0eonen noticed theinclusion of the nae of /ustice Mendo6a aon+ the )SD-* si+natories- As /ustice Mendo6a #as not aon+ those #ho hadph,sicall, si+ned Restorin+ Inte+rit, I #hen it #as previousl, circulated& Dean 0eonen called the attention of his staff to theinclusion of the /ustice>s nae aon+ the )SD-* si+natories in Restorin+ Inte+rit, II-

'-- Dean 0eonen #as told b, his adinistrative officer that she had spo.en to /ustice Mendo6a over the phone on Frida,& (Au+ust '($(- Accordin+ to her& /ustice Mendo6a had authori6ed the dean to si+n the Restorin+ Inte+rit, Stateent for hi ashe a+reed fundaentall, #ith its contents- Also accordin+ to her& /ustice Mendo6a #as unable at that tie to si+n the Restorin+Inte+rit, Stateent hiself as he #as leavin+ for the 9nited States the follo#in+ #ee.- It #ould later turn out that this account

#as not entirel, accurate-%$)9nderscorin+ and italics supplied-*

Dean 0eonen claied that he had no reason to doubt his adinistrative officer& ho#ever& and so placed full reliance on her account %'as JtKhere #ereindeed other facult, ebers #ho had also authori6ed the Dean to indicate that the, #ere si+natories& even thou+h the, #ere at that tie unable toaffi2 their si+natures ph,sicall, to the docuent-%!

o#ever& after receivin+ the Sho# Cause Resolution& Dean 0eonen and his staff revie#ed the circustances surroundin+ their effort to secure /usticeMendo6a>s si+nature- It #ould turn out that this #as #hat actuall, transpired7

'-''-$- On Frida,& ( Au+ust '($(& #hen the dean>s staff tal.ed to /ustice Mendo6a on the phone& he J/ustice Mendo6aK indeedinitiall, a+reed to si+n the Restorin+ Inte+rit, Stateent as he fundaentall, a+reed #ith its contents- o#ever& /usticeMendo6a did not e2actl, sa, that he authori6ed the dean to si+n the Restorin+ Inte+rit, Stateent- Rather& he in3uired if hecould authori6e the dean to si+n it for hi as he #as about to leave for the 9nited States- 5he dean>s staff infored hi thatthe, #ould& at an, rate& still tr, to brin+ the Restorin+ Inte+rit, Stateent to hi-

'-''-'- Due to soe adinistrative difficulties& /ustice Mendo6a #as unable to si+n the Restorin+ Inte+rit, Stateent before he

left for the 9-S- the follo#in+ #ee.-

'-''-!- 5he staff #as able to brin+ Restorin+ Inte+rit, III to /ustice Mendo6a #hen he #ent to the Colle+e to teach on 'Septeber '($(& a da, after his arrival fro the 9-S- 5his tie& /ustice Mendo6a declined to si+n-%

Accordin+ to the Dean7

'-'!- It #as onl, at this tie that Dean 0eonen reali6ed the true iport of the call he received fro /ustice Mendo6a in late Septeber- Indeed& /usticeMendo6a confired that b, the tie the hard cop, of the Restorin+ Inte+rit, Stateent #as brou+ht to hi shortl, after his arrival fro the 9-S-& hedeclined to si+n it because it had alread, becoe controversial- At that tie& he predicted that the Court #ould ta.e soe for of action a+ainst thefacult,- B, then& and under those circustances& he #anted to sho# due deference to the onorable Court& bein+ a forer Associate /ustice and not#ishin+ to undul, a++ravate the situation b, si+nin+ the Stateent-%=)Ephases supplied-*

1ith respect to the oission of Att,- Arovit>s nae in the si+nature pa+e of Restorin+ Inte+rit, II #hen he #as one of the si+natories of Restorin+Inte+rit, I and the erroneous description in Dean 0eonen>s Au+ust $(& '($( letter that the version of the Stateent subitted to the Court #as si+nedb, ! ebers of the 9P 0a# Facult,& it #as e2plained in the Copliance that7

Respondent Att,- Mi+uel Arovit ph,sicall, si+ned Restorin+ Inte+rit, I #hen it #as circulated to hi- o#ever& his nae #as inadvertentl, left out b,Dean 0eonen>s staff in the reforattin+ of the si+nin+ pa+es in Restorin+ Inte+rit, II- 5he dean assued that his nae #as still included in thereforatted si+nin+ pa+es& and so entioned in his cover note to Chief /ustice Corona that ! ebers of the la# facult, si+ned )the ori+inal !" plus/ustice Mendo6a-*%

Dean 0eonen ar+ues that he should not be deeed to have subitted a du, of the Stateent that #as not a true and faithful reproduction of thesae- e ephasi6ed that the ain bod, of the Stateent #as unchan+ed in all its three versions and onl, the si+nature pa+es #ere not the sae-5his purportedl, is erel, reflective of Jthe Stateent>sK essential nature as a Llive> public anifesto eant to continuousl, dra# adherents to itsessa+e& its si+nator, portion is necessaril, evolvin+ and d,naic 2 2 2 an, other printin+s of Jthe StateentK a, be ade in the future& each onereflectin+ the sae te2t but #ith ore and ore si+natories-%"Advertin+ to criinal la# b, analo+,& Dean 0eonen clais that this is not an instance#here it has been ade to appear in a docuent that a person has participated in an act #hen the latter did not in fact so participate %for he did notisrepresent #hich ebers of the facult, of the 9P Colle+e of 0a# had a+reed #ith the Restorin+ Inte+rit, Stateent proper and4or had e2pressedtheir desire to be si+natories thereto-%%

In this re+ard& Dean 0eonen believes that he had not coitted an, violation of Canon $( or Rules $(-($ and $(-(' for he did not islead norisrepresent to the Court the contents of the Stateent or the identities of the 9P 0a# facult, ebers #ho a+reed #ith& or e2pressed their desire tobe si+natories to& the Stateent- e also asserts that he did not coit an, violation of Rule $(-(! as he coursed Jthe StateentK throu+h theappropriate channels b, transittin+ the sae to onorable Chief /ustice Corona for the latter>s inforation and proper disposition #ith the hope thatits points #ould be dul, considered b, the onorable Court en banc- $((Citin+ Rudecon Mana+eent Corporation v- Caacho&$($Dean 0eonen positsthat the re3uired 3uantu of proof has not been et in this case and that no dubious character or otivation for the act coplained of e2isted to#arrant an adinistrative sanction for violation of the standard of honest, provided for b, the Code of Professional Responsibilit,-$('

Dean 0eonen ends his Copliance #ith an enueration of nearl, identical reliefs as the Coon Copliance& includin+ the pra,ers for a hearin+ andfor access to the records& evidence and #itnesses alle+edl, relevant not onl, in this case but also in A-M- No- $(:":$":SC& the ethical investi+ationinvolvin+ /ustice Del Castillo-

Manifestation of Prof- O#en 0,nch )0,nch Manifestation*
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt91http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt91http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt91http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt92http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt92http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt93http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt93http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt94http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt95http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt95http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt95http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt96http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt97http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt97http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt98http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt99http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt100http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt100http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt101http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt101http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt102http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt91http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt92http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt93http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt94http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt95http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt96http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt97http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt98http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt99http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt100http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt101http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt102


13/22

For his part& Prof- O#en 0,nch )Prof- 0,nch* anifests to this Court that he is not a eber of the Philippine bar; but he is a eber of the bar of theState of Minnesota- e alle+es that he first tau+ht as a visitin+ professor at the 9P Colle+e of 0a# in $%$ to $% and returned in the sae capacit, in'($(- e further alle+es that JhKe subscribes to the principle& espoused b, this Court and the Supree Court of the 9nited States& that LJdKebate onpublic issues should be uninhibited& robust and #ide open and that it a, #ell include veheent& caustic& and soeties unpleasantl, sharp attac.son +overnent and public officials-$(!In si+nin+ the Stateent& he believes that the ri+ht to spea. eans the ri+ht to spea. effectivel,-$(Citin+ thedissentin+ opinions in Manila Public School 5eachers Association v- 0a+uio& /r-&$(=Prof- 0,nch ar+ued that JfKor speech to be effective& it ust beforceful enou+h to a.e the intended recipients listen$(and JtKhe 3ualit, of education #ould deteriorate in an atosphere of repression& #hen thever, teachers #ho are supposed to provide an e2aple of coura+e and self:assertiveness to their pupils can spea. onl, in tiorous #hispers-$("Rel,in+ on the doctrine in In the Matter of Petition for Declarator, Relief Re7 Constitutionalit, of Republic Act (& on6ales v- Coission onElections&$(Prof- 0,nch believed that the Stateent did not pose an, dan+er& clear or present& of an, substantive evil so as to reove it fro theprotective antle of the Bill of Ri+hts )i-e-& referrin+ to the constitutional +uarantee on free speech*-$(%e also stated that he has read the Coplianceof the other respondents to the Sho# Cause Resolution and that he si+ned the Restorin+ Inte+rit, Stateent for the sae reasons the, did- $$(

ISS9ES

Based on the Sho# Cause Resolution and a perusal of the subissions of respondents& the aterial issues to be resolved in this case are as follo#s7

$-* Does the Sho# Cause Resolution den, respondents their freedo of e2pressionQ

'-* Does the Sho# Cause Resolution violate respondents> acadeic freedo as la# professorsQ

!-* Do the subissions of respondents satisfactoril, e2plain #h, the, should not be disciplined as Mebers of the Bar underCanons $& $$& and $! and Rules $-(' and $$-(= of the Code of Professional Responsibilit,Q

-* Does the separate Copliance of Dean 0eonen satisfactoril, e2plain #h, he should not be disciplined as a Meber of theBar under Canon $(& Rules $(-($& $(-(' and $(-(!Q

=-* Are respondents entitled to have the Sho# Cause Resolution set for hearin+ and in relation to such hearin+& arerespondents entitled to re3uire the production or presentation of evidence bearin+ on the pla+iaris and isrepresentationissues in the ?inu,a case )-R- No- $''!(* and the ethics case a+ainst /ustice Del Castillo )A-M- No- $(:":$":SC* and tohave access to the records and transcripts of& and the #itnesses and evidence presented& or could have been presented& in theethics case a+ainst /ustice Del Castillo )A-M- No- $(:":$":SC*Q

DISC9SSION

5he Sho# Cause Resolution does not den, respondents their f reedo of e2pression-

It is respondents> collective clai that the Court& #ith the issuance of the Sho# Cause Resolution& has interfered #ith respondents> constitutionall,andated ri+ht to free speech and e2pression- It appears that the underl,in+ assuption behind respondents> assertion is the isconception that thisCourt is den,in+ the the ri+ht to critici6e the Court>s decisions and actions& and that this Court see.s to silence respondent la# professors>

dissentin+ vie# on #hat the, characteri6e as a le+itiate public issue-

5his is far fro the truth- A readin+ of the Sho# Cause Resolution #ill plainl, sho# that it #as neither the fact that respondents had critici6ed a decisionof the Court nor that the, had char+ed one of its ebers of pla+iaris that otivated the said Resolution- It #as the anner of the criticis and thecontuacious lan+ua+e b, #hich respondents& #ho are not parties nor counsels in the Vinuyacase& have e2pressed their opinion in favor of thepetitioners in the said pendin+ case for the proper disposition and consideration of the Court that +ave rise to said Resolution- 5he Sho# CauseResolution painsta.in+l, enuerated the stateents that the Court considered e2cessive and uncalled for under the circustances surroundin+ theissuance& publication& and later subission to this Court of the 9P 0a# facult,>s Restorin+ Inte+rit, Stateent-

5o reiterate& it #as not the circustance that respondents e2pressed a belief that /ustice Del Castillo #as +uilt, of pla+iaris but rather theire2pression of that belief as not onl, as an established fact& but a truth $$$#hen it #as JoKf public .no#led+e Jthat there #asK an on+oin+ investi+ationprecisel, to deterine the truth of such alle+ations-$$'It #as also pointed out in the Sho# Cause Resolution that there #as a pendin+ otion forreconsideration of the ?inu,a decision-$$!5he Sho# Cause Resolution ade no ob


14/22

5o be sure& the Sho# Cause Resolution itself reco+ni6ed respondents> freedo of e2pression #hen it stated that7

1hile ost a+ree that the ri+ht to critici6e the


15/22

e indicts this Court& in his o#n phrase& as a tribunal peopled b, en #ho are calloused to our pleas for


16/22

inte+rit, of the ebers of this Court& and conse3uentl, to lo#er or de+rade the adinistration of


17/22

5o be sure& the adversarial nature of our le+al s,ste has tepted ebers of the bar to use stron+ lan+ua+e in pursuit of their dut, to advance theinterests of their clients-

Ho75>5r, 7h/=5 a =a75r / 5/=5< o 9r55 h/ ca5 7/h >/6or a< co;ra65, ;ch 5h;/a 5 a5 =a6;a65. La6;a65 ao;/c/6 ; o 5.

O a occa/o, h5 Co;r ha r5/5 95roa=/and to advance no fact pre


18/22

avin+ disposed of respondents> ain ar+uents of freedo of e2pression and acadeic freedo& the Court considers here the other averents intheir subissions-

1ith respect to +ood faith& respondents> alle+ations presented t#o ain ideas7 )a* the validit, of their position re+ardin+ the pla+iaris char+e a+ainst/ustice Del Castillo& and )b* their pure otive to spur this Court to ta.e the correct action on said issue-

5he Court has alread, clarified that it is not the e2pression of respondents> staunch belief that /ustice Del Castillo has coitted a isconduct that theas conviction in the ri+hteousness of his

cause there is sipl, no e2cuse for deni+ratin+ the courts and en+a+in+ in public behavior that tends to put the courts and the le+al profession intodisrepute- 5his doctrine& #hich #e have repeatedl, upheld in such cases as Salcedo& In re Alacen and Saberon+& should be applied in this case #ithore reason& as the respondents& not parties to the Vinuyacase& denounced the Court and ur+ed it to chan+e its decision therein& in a public stateentusin+ contuacious lan+ua+e& #hich #ith teerit, the, subse3uentl, subitted to the Court for proper disposition-

5hat huiliatin+ the Court into reconsiderin+ the ?inu,a Decision in favor of the Mala,a 0olas #as one of the obs consideration& #h, #as the sae published and reported in theedia first before it #as subitted to this CourtQ It is ore plausible that the Stateent #as prepared for consuption b, the +eneral public anddesi+ned to capture edia attention as part of the effort to +enerate interest in the ost controversial +round in the Suppleental Motion forReconsideration filed in the ?inu,a case b, Att,- Ro3ue& #ho is respondents> collea+ue on the 9P 0a# facult,-

In this re+ard& the Court finds that there #as indeed a lac. of observance of fidelit, and due respect to the Court& particularl, #hen respondents .ne#full, #ell that the atter of pla+iaris in the ?inu,a decision and the erits of the ?inu,a decision itself& at the tie of the Stateent>s issuance& #erestill both sub outra+e #as fueled b, their perception of indifference on the part of the Courtthen& #hen it becae .no#n that the Court did intend to ta.e action& there #as nothin+ to prevent respondents fro recalibratin+ the Stateent to ta.ethis supervenin+ event into account in the interest of fairness-

Spea.in+ of the publicit, this case has +enerated& #e li.e#ise find no erit in the respondents> reliance on various ne#s reports and coentaries inthe print edia and the internet as proof that the, are bein+ unfairl, sin+led out- On the contrar,& these sae anne2es to the Coon Copliancesho# that it is not enou+h for one to critici6e the Court to #arrant the institution of disciplinar,$!"or contept$!action- 5his Court ta.es into account thenature of the criticis and #ei+hs the possible repercussions of the sae on the /udiciar,- 1hen the criticis coes fro persons outside theprofession #ho a, not have a full +rasp of le+al issues or fro individuals #hose personal or other interests in a.in+ the criticis are obvious& theCourt a, perhaps tolerate or i+nore the- o#ever& #hen la# professors are the ones #ho appear to have lost si+ht of the boundaries of fair
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt135http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt135http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt135http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt136http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt137http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt137http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt138http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt138http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt138http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt135http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt136http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt137http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt138


19/22

coentar, and #orse& #ould s persuasive authorit, ainl, depends on the reputation and stature of the persons #ho have endorsed the sae- Indeed& it is apparentfro respondents> e2planations that their o#n belief in the iportance of their positions as 9P la# professors propted the to publicl, spea. out on

the atter of the pla+iaris issue in the ?inu,a case-

Further& in our assessent& the true cause of Dean 0eonen>s predicaent is the fact that he did not fro the be+innin+ subit the si+ned cop,&Restorin+ Inte+rit, I& to this Court on Au+ust $$& '($( and& instead& subitted Restorin+ Inte+rit, II #ith its ret,ped or reforatted si+nature pa+es- It#ould turn out& accordin+ to Dean 0eonen>s account& that there #ere errors in the ret,pin+ of the si+nature pa+es due to lapses of his unnaed staff-First& an unnaed adinistrative officer in the dean>s office +ave the dean inaccurate inforation that led hi to allo# the inclusion of /ustice Mendo6aas aon+ the si+natories of Restorin+ Inte+rit, II- Second& an unnaed staff also failed to t,pe the nae of Att,- Arovit #hen encodin+ the si+naturepa+es of Restorin+ Inte+rit, II #hen in fact he had si+ned Restorin+ Inte+rit, I-

5he Court can understand #h, for purposes of postin+ on a bulletin board or a #ebsite a si+ned docuent a, have to be reforatted and si+naturesa, be indicated b, the notation )SD*- 5his is not unusual- 1e are #illin+ to accept that the reforattin+ of docuents eant for postin+ to eliinateblan.s is necessitated b, vandalis concerns-
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt139http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt139http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt140http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt139http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt140


20/22

o#ever& #hat is unusual is the subission to a court& especiall, this Court& of a si+ned docuent for the Court>s consideration that did not contain theactual si+natures of its authors- In ost cases& it is the ori+inal si+ned docuent that is transitted to the Court or at the ver, least a photocop, of theactual si+ned docuent- Dean 0eonen has not offered an, e2planation #h, he deviated fro this practice #ith his subission to the Court of Restorin+Inte+rit, II on Au+ust $$& '($(- 5here #as nothin+ to prevent the dean fro subittin+ Restorin+ Inte+rit, I to this Court even #ith its blan.s andunsi+ned portions- Dean 0eonen cannot clai fears of vandalis #ith respect to court subissions for court eplo,ees are accountable for the care ofdocuents and records that a, coe into their custod,- Het& Dean 0eonen deliberatel, chose to subit to this Court the facsiile that did not containthe actual si+natures and his silence on the reason therefor is in itself a displa, of lac. of candor-

Still& a careful readin+ of Dean 0eonen>s e2planations ,ield the ans#er- In the course of his e2planation of his #illin+ness to accept his adinistrative

officer>s clai that /ustice Mendo6a a+reed to be indicated as a si+nator,& Dean 0eonen adits in a footnote that other professors had li.e#ise onl,authori6ed hi to indicate the as si+natories and had not in fact si+ned the Stateent- 5hus& at around the tie Restorin+ Inte+rit, II #as printed&posted and subitted to this Court& at least one purported si+nator, thereto had not actuall, si+ned the sae- Contrar, to Dean 0eonen>s proposition&that is precisel, tantaount to a.in+ it appear to this Court that a person or persons participated in an act #hen such person or persons did not-

1e are surprised that soeone li.e Dean 0eonen& #ith his reputation for perfection and strin+ent standards of intellectual honest,& could proffer thee2planation that there #as no isrepresentation #hen he allo#ed at least one person to be indicated as havin+ actuall, si+ned the Stateent #hen allhe had #as a verbal counication of an intent to si+n- In the case of /ustice Mendo6a& #hat he had #as onl, hearsa, inforation that the forerintended to si+n the Stateent- If Dean 0eonen #as trul, deterined to observe candor and truthfulness in his dealin+s #ith the Court& #e see noreason #h, he could not have #aited until all the professors #ho indicated their desire to si+n the Stateent had in fact si+ned before transittin+ theStateent to the Court as a dul, si+ned docuent- If it #as trul, ipossible to secure soe si+natures& such as that of /ustice Mendo6a #ho had toleave for abroad& then Dean 0eonen should have s Copliance unsatisfactor,- o#ever& the Court is #illin+ to ascribe these isolated lapses in re3uests for a hearin+& for production4presentation of evidence bearin+ on the pla+iaris and isrepresentation issues in -R- No-$''!( and A-M- No- $(:":$":SC& and for access to the records of A-M- No- $(:":$":SC are uneritorious-

In the Coon Copliance& respondents naed therein as.ed for alternative reliefs should the Court find their Copliance unsatisfactor,& that is& thatthe Sho# Cause Resolution be set for hearin+ and for that purpose& the, be allo#ed to re3uire the production or presentation of #itnesses andevidence bearin+ on the pla+iaris and isrepresentation issues in the Vinuyacase )-R- No- $''!(* and the pla+iaris case a+ainst /ustice DelCastillo )A-M- No- $(:":$":SC* and to have access to the records of& and evidence that #ere presented or a, be presented in the ethics case a+ainst/ustice Del Castillo- 5he pra,er for a hearin+ and for access to the records of A-M- No- $(:":$":SC #as substantiall, echoed in Dean 0eonen>sseparate Copliance- In Prof- /uan:Bautista>s Copliance& she siilarl, e2pressed the sentient that JiKf the Restorin+ Inte+rit, Stateent can beconsidered indirect contept& under Section ! of Rule "$ of the Rules of Court& such a, be punished onl, after char+e and hearin+- $$It is this +roupof respondents> preise that these reliefs are necessar, for the to be accorded full due process-

5he Court finds this contention uneritorious-

Firstl,& it #ould appear that the confusion as to the necessit, of a hearin+ in this case sprin+s lar+el, fro its characteri6ation as a special civil actionfor indirect contept in the Dissentin+ Opinion of /ustice Sereno )to the October $%& '($( Sho# Cause Resolution* and her reliance therein on theas purported failure to follo# the procedure in Rule "$ of the Rules of Court as her ain +round for opposition to the Sho# Cause Resolution-

o#ever& once and for all& it should be clarified that this is not an indirect contept proceedin+ and Rule "$ )#hich re3uires a hearin+* has noapplication to this case- As e2plicitl, ordered in the Sho# Cause Resolution this case #as doc.eted as an adinistrative atter-

5he rule that is relevant to this controvers, is Rule $!%:B& Section $!& on disciplinar, proceedin+s initiated otu proprio b, the Supree Court& to #it7

SEC- $!- Supreme ourt Investi!ators.8In proceedin+s initiated motu proprio b, the Supree Court or in other proceedin+s #hen the interest of


21/22

In relation to bar discipline cases& #e have had the occasion to rule in Pena v- Aparicio$!that7

Disciplinar, proceedin+s a+ainst la#,ers are sui !eneris- Neither purel, civil nor purel, criinal& the, do not involve a trial of an action or a suit& but israther an investi+ation b, the Court into the conduct of one of its officers- Not bein+ intended to inflict punishent& it is in no sense a criinalprosecution- Accordin+l,& there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein- It a, be initiated b, the Court motu proprio- Public interest is its priar,ob


22/22

5hus& respondents> re3uests for a hearin+ and for access to the records of& and evidence presented in& A-M- No- $(:":$":SC should be denied for lac.of erit-

A 3/a= 7or

Documents

Allegation of Plagiarism