MABITAZAN, Tedd B. LL. B. 1 A 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: Petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya, et al., all members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, seek reconsideration of the decision of the Court dated October 12, 2010 that dismissed their charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect against Justice Mariano Del Castillo in connection with the decision he wrote for the Court in G.R. No. 162230, entitled Vinuya v. Romulo. In Vinuya, Justice Del Castillo examined and summarized the facts as seen by the opposing sides in a way that no one has ever done. He identified and formulated the core of the issues that the parties raised. And when he had done this, he discussed the state of the law relevant to their resolution. It was here that he drew materials from various sources, including the three foreign authors cited in the charges against him. He compared the divergent views these present as they developed in history. He then explained why the Court must reject some views in light of the peculiar facts of the case and applied those that suit such facts. Finally, he drew from his discussions of the facts and the law the right solution to the dispute in the case. The petitioners claim that the Court has by its decision legalized or approved of the commission of plagiarism in the Philippines. Issues: 1. Whether or not the Court has by its decision legalized or approved of the commission of plagiarism in the Philippines. 2. Whether or not Justice Mariano Del Castillo is guilty of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials and gross neglect. Ruling: 1. No. The Court condemns plagiarism as the world in general understands and uses the term. Blacks Law Dictionary defines plagiarism as the deliberate and knowing presentation of another person's original ideas or creative expressions as ones own. According to Bast and Samuels, while the academic publishing model is based on the originality of the writers thesis, the judicial system is based on the doctrine of stare decisis, which encourages courts to cite historical legal data, precedents, and related studies in their decisions. The judge is not expected to produce original scholarship in every respect. The strength of a decision lies in the soundness and general acceptance of the precedents and long held legal opinions it draws from.

Under the doctrine of stare decisis, judicial interpretations of such laws as are applied to specific situations. Under this doctrine, Courts are to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled point. Once the Court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties or property are the same. The tendency to copy in law is reasonable. As stated in the Courts Resolution, 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 partys 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. Their decisions analyze the often conflicting facts of each case and sort out the relevant from the irrelevant. They identify and formulate the issue or issues that need to be resolved and evaluate each of the laws, rulings, principles, or authorities that the parties to the case invoke. The decisions then draw their apt conclusions regarding whether or not such laws, rulings, principles, or authorities apply to the particular cases before the Court. These efforts, reduced in writing, are the product of the judges creativity. It is hereactually the substance of their decisionsthat their genius, originality, and honest labor can be found, of which they should be proud. 2. No. The attributions were accidentally deleted and were present in the original drafts of Justice Del Castillo as found by the Courts Ethics Committee. Neither Justice Del Castillo nor his researcher had a motive or reason for omitting attribution for the lifted passages. Justice Del Castillo made attributions to passages in such decision that he borrowed from his sources although they at times suffered in formatting lapses. Malicious intent was viewed as an essential element, as plagiarism is essentially a form of fraud where intent to deceive is inherent. The Court stated that plagiarism presupposes intent and a deliberate, conscious effort to steal anothers work and pass it off as ones own. Justice Del Castillo never intended to claim as the original author of the passages. The failure was not attended by any malicious intent not to attribute the lifted passages to the foreign authors. The Court DENIES petitioners motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.