Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC
SUPREME COURT disciplinary proceeding firmly in mind, the Court which has not been proved.
Manila finds that with the exception of one respondent
whose compliance was adequate and another who Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe
EN BANC manifested he was not a member of the Philippine the rules of procedure and shall not
Bar, the submitted explanations, being mere denials misuse them to defeat the ends of
and/or tangential to the issues at hand, are decidedly justice.
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC March 8, 2011
unsatisfactory. The proffered defenses even more
urgently behoove this Court to call the attention of
RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY CANON 11 A lawyer shall observe and maintain
respondent law professors, who are members of the
ENTITLED "RESTORING INTEGRITY: A the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers
Bar, to the relationship of their duties as such under
STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE and should insist on similar conduct by others.
the Code of Professional Responsibility to their civil
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES rights as citizens and academics in our free and
COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS democratic republic. RULE 11.05 A lawyer shall submit
OF PLAGIARISM AND grievances against a Judge to the
MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME proper authorities only.
The provisions of the Code of Professional
COURT"
Responsibility involved in this case are as follows:
CANON 13 A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of
DECISION his cause and refrain from any impropriety which
CANON 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, tends to influence, or gives the appearance of
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: influencing the court.
and legal processes.
For disposition of the Court are the various Established jurisprudence will undeniably support
RULE 1.02 - A lawyer shall not
submissions of the 37 respondent law professors1 in our view that when lawyers speak their minds, they
counsel or abet activities aimed at
response to the Resolution dated October 19, 2010 must ever be mindful of their sworn oath to observe
defiance of the law or at lessening
(the Show Cause Resolution), directing them to show ethical standards of their profession, and in particular,
confidence in the legal system.
cause why they should not be disciplined as members avoid foul and abusive language to condemn the
of the Bar for violation of specific provisions of the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, for a
CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and decision it has rendered, especially during the
Code of Professional Responsibility enumerated
good faith to the court. pendency of a motion for such decisions
therein.
reconsideration. The accusation of plagiarism against
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do a member of this Court is not the real issue here but
At the outset, it must be stressed that the Show Cause
any falsehood, nor consent to the rather this plagiarism issue has been used to deflect
Resolution clearly dockets this as an administrative
doing of any in court; nor shall he everyones attention from the actual concern of this
matter, not a special civil action for indirect contempt
mislead, or allow the Court to be Court to determine by respondents explanations
under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, contrary to the
misled by any artifice. whether or not respondent members of the Bar have
dissenting opinion of Associate Justice Maria
crossed the line of decency and acceptable
Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Justice Sereno) to the said
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not professional conduct and speech and violated the
October 19, 2010 Show Cause Resolution. Neither is
knowingly misquote or Rules of Court through improper intervention or
this a disciplinary proceeding grounded on an
allegedly irregularly concluded finding of indirect misrepresent the contents of paper, interference as third parties to a pending case.
the language or the argument of Preliminarily, it should be stressed that it was
contempt as intimated by Associate Justice Conchita
opposing counsel, or the text of a respondents themselves who called upon the
Carpio Morales (Justice Morales) in her dissenting
decision or authority, or knowingly Supreme Court to act on their Statement,2 which they
opinions to both the October 19, 2010 Show Cause
cite as law a provision already formally submitted, through Dean Marvic M.V.F.
Resolution and the present decision.
rendered inoperative by repeal or Leonen (Dean Leonen), for the Courts proper
disposition. Considering the defenses of freedom of II. This Honorable Court has confused article "A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens;"9 (2)
speech and academic freedom invoked by the diplomatic protection with the broader, if Christian J. Tams book Enforcing Erga Omnes
respondents, it is worth discussing here that the legal fundamental, responsibility of states to Obligations in International Law;10 and (3) Mark
reasoning used in the past by this Court to rule that protect the human rights of its citizens Ellis article "Breaking the Silence: On Rape as an
freedom of expression is not a defense in especially where the rights asserted are International Crime."11
administrative cases against lawyers for using subject of erga omnes obligations and
intemperate speech in open court or in court pertain to jus cogens norms.5 On the same day as the filing of the Supplemental
submissions can similarly be applied to respondents Motion for Reconsideration on July 19, 2010,
invocation of academic freedom. Indeed, it is On July 19, 2010,6 counsel for the Malaya Lolas, journalists Aries C. Rufo and Purple S. Romero
precisely because respondents are not merely lawyers Attys. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr. (Atty. Roque) and posted an article, entitled "SC justice plagiarized
but lawyers who teach law and mould the minds of Romel Regalado Bagares (Atty. Bagares), filed a parts of ruling on comfort women," on the
young aspiring attorneys that respondents own non- Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. Newsbreak website.12 The same article appeared on
observance of the Code of Professional No. 162230, where they posited for the first time the GMA News TV website also on July 19, 2010.13
Responsibility, even if purportedly motivated by the their charge of plagiarism as one of the grounds for
purest of intentions, cannot be ignored nor glossed reconsideration of the Vinuya decision. Among other On July 22, 2010, Atty. Roques column, entitled
over by this Court. arguments, Attys. Roque and Bagares asserted that: "Plagiarized and Twisted," appeared in the Manila
Standard Today.14 In the said column, Atty. Roque
To fully appreciate the grave repercussions of I. claimed that Prof. Evan Criddle, one of the authors
respondents actuations, it is apropos to revisit the purportedly not properly acknowledged in the Vinuya
factual antecedents of this case. decision, confirmed that his work, co-authored with
IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT IS HIGHLY IMPROPER
FOR THIS HONORABLE COURTS JUDGMENT Prof. Evan Fox-Decent, had been plagiarized. Atty.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE OF APRIL 28, 2010 TO PLAGIARIZE AT LEAST Roque quoted Prof. Criddles response to the post by
THREE SOURCES AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED Julian Ku regarding the news report15 on the alleged
Antecedent Facts and Proceedings IN 2009 IN THE YALE LAW JOURNAL OF plagiarism in the international law blog, Opinio Juris.
INTERNATIONAL LAW, A BOOK PUBLISHED Prof. Criddle responded to Kus blog entry in this
BY THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS IN wise:
On April 28, 2010, the ponencia of Associate Justice
Mariano del Castillo (Justice Del Castillo) in Vinuya, 2005 AND AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN 2006 IN
et al. v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230) was THE CASE WESTERN RESERVE JOURNAL OF The newspapers16 [plagiarism] claims are based on a
promulgated. On May 31, 2010, the counsel3 for INTERNATIONAL LAW AND MAKE IT motion for reconsideration filed yesterday with the
Vinuya, et al. (the "Malaya Lolas"), filed a Motion APPEAR THAT THESE SOURCES SUPPORT THE Philippine Supreme Court yesterday. The motion is
for Reconsideration of the Vinuya decision, raising JUDGMENTS ARGUMENTS FOR DISMISSING available here:
solely the following grounds: THE INSTANT PETITION WHEN IN TRUTH,
THE PLAGIARIZED SOURCES EVEN MAKE A http://harryroque.com/2010/07/18/supplemental-
STRONG CASE FOR THE PETITIONS CLAIMS.7 motion-alleging-plagiarism-in-the-supreme-court/
I. Our own constitutional and jurisprudential
histories reject this Honorable Courts (sic)
assertion that the Executives foreign policy They also claimed that "[i]n this controversy, the The motion suggests that the Courts decision
prerogatives are virtually unlimited; evidence bears out the fact not only of extensive contains thirty-four sentences and citations that are
precisely, under the relevant jurisprudence plagiarism but of (sic) also of twisting the true intents identical to sentences and citations in my 2009 YJIL
and constitutional provisions, such of the plagiarized sources by the ponencia to suit the article (co-authored with Evan Fox-Decent).
prerogatives are proscribed by international arguments of the assailed Judgment for denying the Professor Fox-Decent and I were unaware of the
human rights and humanitarian standards, Petition."8 petitioners [plagiarism] allegations until after the
including those provided for in the relevant motion was filed today.
international conventions of which the According to Attys. Roque and Bagares, the works
Philippines is a party.4 allegedly plagiarized in the Vinuya decision were Speaking for myself, the most troubling aspect of the
namely: (1) Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Decents courts jus cogens discussion is that it implies that the
prohibitions against crimes against humanity, sexual for the appropriate legal remedy for victims of war On August 11, 2010, Dean Leonen submitted a copy
slavery, and torture are not jus cogens norms. Our crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. of the Statement of the University of the Philippines
article emphatically asserts the opposite. The College of Law Faculty (UP Law faculty) to the
Supreme Courts decision is available I believe a full copy of my article as published in the Court, through Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (Chief
here: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/ap Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law in Justice Corona). The cover letter dated August 10,
ril2010/162230.htm17 2006 has been made available to your esteemed 2010 of Dean Leonen read:
Court. I trust that your esteemed Court will take the
On even date, July 22, 2010, Justice Del Castillo time to carefully study the arguments I made in the The Honorable
wrote to his colleagues on the Court in reply to the article. Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines
charge of plagiarism contained in the Supplemental
Motion for Reconsideration.18 I would appreciate receiving a response from your Through: Hon. Renato C. Corona
esteemed Court as to the issues raised by this letter. Chief Justice
In a letter dated July 23, 2010, another purportedly
plagiarized author in the Vinuya decision, Dr. Mark With respect, Subject: Statement of faculty
Ellis, wrote the Court, to wit: from the UP College of Law
on the Plagiarism in the case of
(Sgd.)
Your Honours: Vinuya v Executive Secretary
Dr. Mark Ellis20
I write concerning a most delicate issue that has come In Memorandum Order No. 35-2010 issued on July Your Honors:
to my attention in the last few days. 27, 2010, the Court formed the Committee on Ethics
and Ethical Standards (the Ethics Committee) We attach for your information and proper
Much as I regret to raise this matter before your pursuant to Section 13, Rule 2 of the Internal Rules disposition a statement signed by thirty[-]eight
esteemed Court, I am compelled, as a question of the of the Supreme Court. In an En Banc Resolution also (38)28members of the faculty of the UP College of
integrity of my work as an academic and as an dated July 27, 2010, the Court referred the July 22, Law. We hope that its points could be considered by
advocate of human rights and humanitarian law, to 2010 letter of Justice Del Castillo to the Ethics the Supreme Court en banc.
take exception to the possible unauthorized use of my Committee. The matter was subsequently docketed as
law review article on rape as an international crime in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC. Respectfully,
your esteemed Courts Judgment in the case of
Vinuya et al. v. Executive Secretary et al. (G.R. No. On August 2, 2010, the Ethics Committee required (Sgd.)
162230, Judgment of 28 April 2010). Attys. Roque and Bagares to comment on the letter of Marvic M.V.F. Leonen
Justice Del Castillo.21 Dean and Professor of Law
My attention was called to the Judgment and the
issue of possible plagiarism by the Philippine chapter On August 9, 2010, a statement dated July 27, 2010, (Emphases supplied.)
of the Southeast Asia Media Legal Defence Initiative entitled "Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the
(SEAMLDI),19 an affiliate of the London-based Faculty of the University of the Philippines College
Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI), where I sit The copy of the Statement attached to the above-
of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and
as trustee. quoted letter did not contain the actual signatures of
Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court" (the
the alleged signatories but only stated the names of
Statement), was posted in Newsbreaks website22 and
37 UP Law professors with the notation (SGD.)
In particular, I am concerned about a large part of the on Atty. Roques blog.23 A report regarding the
appearing beside each name. For convenient
extensive discussion in footnote 65, pp. 27-28, of the statement also appeared on various on-line news
reference, the text of the UP Law faculty Statement is
said Judgment of your esteemed Court. I am also sites, such as the GMA News TV24 and the Sun
reproduced here:
concerned that your esteemed Court may have Star25 sites, on the same date. The statement was
misread the arguments I made in the article and likewise posted at the University of the Philippines
employed them for cross purposes. This would be College of Laws bulletin board allegedly on August RESTORING INTEGRITY
ironic since the article was written precisely to argue 10, 201026 and at said colleges website.27
A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF Evidently, this is a complete perversion and misrepresents the conclusions of their work entitled
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES falsification of the ends of justice. "A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens," the main source
COLLEGE OF LAW of the plagiarized text. In this article they argue that
ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND A comparison of the Vinuya decision and the original the classification of the crimes of rape, torture, and
MISREPRESENTATION source material shows that the ponente merely copied sexual slavery as crimes against humanity have
IN THE SUPREME COURT select portions of other legal writers works and attained the status of jus cogens, making it obligatory
interspersed them into the decision as if they were his upon the State to seek remedies on behalf of its
An extraordinary act of injustice has again been own, original work. Under the circumstances, aggrieved citizens. Yet, the Vinuya decision uses
committed against the brave Filipinas who had however, because the Decision has been promulgated parts of the same article to arrive at the contrary
suffered abuse during a time of war. After they by the Court, the Decision now becomes the Courts conclusion. This exacerbates the intellectual
courageously came out with their very personal and no longer just the ponentes. Thus the Court also dishonesty of copying works without attribution
stories of abuse and suffering as "comfort women", bears the responsibility for the Decision. In the by transforming it into an act of intellectual fraud by
waited for almost two decades for any meaningful absence of any mention of the original writers names copying works in order to mislead and deceive.
relief from their own government as well as from the and the publications from which they came, the thing
government of Japan, got their hopes up for a speaks for itself. The case is a potential landmark decision in
semblance of judicial recourse in the case of Vinuya International Law, because it deals with State liability
v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230 (28 April So far there have been unsatisfactory responses from and responsibility for personal injury and damage
2010), they only had these hopes crushed by a the ponente of this case and the spokesman of the suffered in a time of war, and the role of the injured
singularly reprehensible act of dishonesty and Court. parties home States in the pursuit of remedies against
misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land. such injury or damage. National courts rarely have
such opportunities to make an international impact.
It is argued, for example, that the inclusion of the
It is within this frame that the Faculty of the That the petitioners were Filipino "comfort women"
footnotes from the original articles is a reference to
University of the Philippines College of Law views who suffered from horrific abuse during the Second
the primary sources relied upon. This cursory
the charge that an Associate Justice of the Supreme World War made it incumbent on the Court of last
explanation is not acceptable, because the original
Court committed plagiarism and misrepresentation in resort to afford them every solicitude. But instead of
authors writings and the effort they put into finding
Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. The plagiarism and acting with urgency on this case, the Court delayed
and summarizing those primary sources are precisely
misrepresentation are not only affronts to the its resolution for almost seven years, oblivious to the
the subject of plagiarism. The inclusion of the
individual scholars whose work have been deaths of many of the petitioners seeking justice from
footnotes together with portions of their writings in
appropriated without correct attribution, but also a the Court. When it dismissed the Vinuya petition
fact aggravates, instead of mitigates, the plagiarism
serious threat to the integrity and credibility of the based on misrepresented and plagiarized materials,
since it provides additional evidence of a deliberate
Philippine Judicial System. the Court decided this case based on polluted sources.
intention to appropriate the original authors work of
By so doing, the Supreme Court added insult to
organizing and analyzing those primary sources.
injury by failing to actually exercise its "power to
In common parlance, plagiarism is the appropriation
urge and exhort the Executive Department to take up
and misrepresentation of another persons work as It is also argued that the Members of the Court cannot the claims of the Vinuya petitioners. Its callous
ones own. In the field of writing, it is cheating at be expected to be familiar with all legal and scholarly disposition, coupled with false sympathy and
best, and stealing at worst. It constitutes a taking of journals. This is also not acceptable, because personal nonchalance, belies a more alarming lack of concern
someone elses ideas and expressions, including all unfamiliarity with sources all the more demands for even the most basic values of decency and
the effort and creativity that went into committing correct and careful attribution and citation of the respect. The reputation of the Philippine Supreme
such ideas and expressions into writing, and then material relied upon. It is a matter of diligence and Court and the standing of the Philippine legal
making it appear that such ideas and expressions competence expected of all Magistrates of the
were originally created by the taker. It is dishonesty, profession before other Judiciaries and legal systems
Highest Court of the Land. are truly at stake.
pure and simple. A judicial system that allows
plagiarism in any form is one that allows dishonesty. But a far more serious matter is the objection of the The High Court cannot accommodate less than
Since all judicial decisions form part of the law of the original writers, Professors Evan Criddle and Evan absolute honesty in its decisions and cannot accept
land, to allow plagiarism in the Supreme Court is to Fox-Descent, that the High Court actually excuses for failure to attain the highest standards of
allow the production of laws by dishonest means.
conduct imposed upon all members of the Bench and Secretary is unacceptable, unethical legal research and writing in
Bar because these undermine the very foundation of and in breach of the high standards pleadings, practice, and
its authority and power in a democratic society. of moral conduct and judicial and adjudication.
Given the Courts recent history and the controversy professional competence expected
that surrounded it, it cannot allow the charges of of the Supreme Court; Malcolm Hall, University of the Philippines College
such clear and obvious plagiarism to pass without of Law, Quezon City, 27 July 2010.
sanction as this would only further erode faith and (2) Such a fundamental breach
confidence in the judicial system. And in light of the endangers the integrity and (SGD.) MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
significance of this decision to the quest for justice credibility of the entire Supreme Dean and Professor of Law
not only of Filipino women, but of women elsewhere Court and undermines the
in the world who have suffered the horrors of sexual foundations of the Philippine
abuse and exploitation in times of war, the judicial system by allowing (SGD.) FROILAN (SGD.) PACIFICO
Court cannot coldly deny relief and justice to the implicitly the decision of cases and M. BACUNGAN A. AGABIN
petitioners on the basis of pilfered and misinterpreted the establishment of legal Dean (1978-1983) Dean (1989-1995)
texts. precedents through dubious means;
(SGD.)
The Court cannot regain its credibility and maintain (3) The same breach and SALVADOR T.
its moral authority without ensuring that its own consequent disposition of (SGD.) MERLIN
CARLOTA
conduct, whether collectively or through its the Vinuya case does violence to M. MAGALLONA
Dean (2005-2008)
Members, is beyond reproach. This necessarily the primordial function of the Dean (1995-1999)
and Professor of
includes ensuring that not only the content, but also Supreme Court as the ultimate Law
the processes of preparing and writing its own dispenser of justice to all those who
decisions, are credible and beyond question. The have been left without legal or
Vinuya Decision must be conscientiously reviewed equitable recourse, such as the REGULAR FACULTY
and not casually cast aside, if not for the purpose of petitioners therein;
sanction, then at least for the purpose of reflection
and guidance. It is an absolutely essential step toward (SGD.)
(4) In light of the extremely serious (SGD.) JAY L.
the establishment of a higher standard of professional CARMELO V.
and far-reaching nature of the BATONGBACAL
care and practical scholarship in the Bench and Bar, SISON
dishonesty and to save the honor Assistant Professor
which are critical to improving the system of Professor
and dignity of the Supreme Court
administration of justice in the Philippines. It is also a as an institution, it is necessary for
very crucial step in ensuring the position of the the ponente of Vinuya v. Executive (SGD.) PATRICIA
Supreme Court as the Final Arbiter of all (SGD.) EVELYN
Secretary to resign his position, R.P. SALVADOR
controversies: a position that requires competence (LEO) D.
without prejudice to any other DAWAY
and integrity completely above any and all reproach, BATTAD
sanctions that the Court may Associate Dean and
in accordance with the exacting demands of judicial Assistant Professor
consider appropriate; Associate Professor
and professional ethics.
(5) The Supreme Court must take (SGD.) DANTE B. (SGD.) GWEN G.
With these considerations, and bearing in mind the this opportunity to review the GATMAYTAN DE VERA
solemn duties and trust reposed upon them as manner by which it conducts Associate Professor Assistant Professor
teachers in the profession of Law, it is the opinion of research, prepares drafts, reaches
the Faculty of the University of the Philippine and finalizes decisions in order to (SGD.) (SGD.)
College of Law that: prevent a recurrence of similar acts, THEODORE O. SOLOMON F.
and to provide clear and concise TE LUMBA
(1) The plagiarism committed in guidance to the Bench and Bar to
the case of Vinuya v. Executive Assistant Professor Assistant Professor
ensure only the highest quality of
Your Excellency, On both aspects, I would appreciate a prompt
(SGD.) FLORIN T. (SGD.) ROMMEL response from your Honourable Court.
HILBAY J. CASIS
My name is Christian J. Tams, and I am a professor
Assistant Professor Assistant Professor
of international law at the University of Glasgow. I I remain
am writing to you in relation to the use of one of my
LECTURERS publications in the above-mentioned judgment of Sincerely yours
your Honourable Court.
(SGD.) JOSE (Sgd.)
(SGD.) JOSE C. The relevant passage of the judgment is to be found Christian J. Tams31
GERARDO A.
LAURETA on p. 30 of your Courts Judgment, in the section
ALAMPAY
addressing the concept of obligations erga omnes. As
(SGD.) ARTHUR P. (SGD.) DINA D. In the course of the submission of Atty. Roque and
the table annexed to this letter shows, the relevant
AUTEA LUCENARIO Atty. Bagares exhibits during the August 26, 2010
sentences were taken almost word by word from the
(SGD.) ROSA MARIA (SGD.) OWEN J. hearing in the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo,
introductory chapter of my book Enforcing
J. BAUTISTA LYNCH the Ethics Committee noted that Exhibit "J" (a copy
Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law
(SGD.) MARK R. (SGD.) ANTONIO M. of the Restoring Integrity Statement) was not signed
(Cambridge University Press 2005). I note that there
BOCOBO SANTOS but merely reflected the names of certain faculty
is a generic reference to my work in footnote 69 of members with the letters (SGD.) beside the names.
(SGD.) DAN P. (SGD.) VICENTE V. the Judgment, but as this is in relation to a citation Thus, the Ethics Committee directed Atty. Roque to
CALICA MENDOZA from another author (Bruno Simma) rather than with present the signed copy of the said Statement within
(SGD.) TRISTAN A. (SGD.) RODOLFO respect to the substantive passages reproduced in the three days from the August 26 hearing.32
CATINDIG NOEL S. QUIMBO Judgment, I do not think it can be considered an
(SGD.) SANDRA (SGD.) GMELEEN appropriate form of referencing.
It was upon compliance with this directive that the
MARIE O. CORONEL FAYE B. TOMBOC
Ethics Committee was given a copy of the signed UP
(SGD.) ROSARIO O. (SGD.) NICHOLAS I am particularly concerned that my work should Law Faculty Statement that showed on the signature
GALLO FELIX L. TY have been used to support the Judgments cautious pages the names of the full roster of the UP Law
(SGD.) CONCEPCION (SGD.) EVALYN G. approach to the erga omnes concept. In fact, a most Faculty, 81 faculty members in all. Indubitable from
L. JARDELEZA URSUA cursory reading shows that my books central thesis the actual signed copy of the Statement was that only
(SGD.) ANTONIO G.M. (SGD.) RAUL T. is precisely the opposite: namely that the erga omnes 37 of the 81 faculty members appeared to have
LA VIA VASQUEZ concept has been widely accepted and has a firm signed the same. However, the 37 actual signatories
place in contemporary international law. Hence the
(SGD.) SUSAN D. to the Statement did not include former Supreme
(SGD.) CARINA C. introductory chapter notes that "[t]he present study
VILLANUEVA29 Court Associate Justice Vicente V. Mendoza (Justice
LAFORTEZA attempts to demystify aspects of the very
(Underscoring supplied.) Mendoza) as represented in the previous copies of the
mysterious concept and thereby to facilitate its Statement submitted by Dean Leonen and Atty.
implementation" (p. 5). In the same vein, the
Meanwhile, in a letter dated August 18, 2010, Prof. Roque. It also appeared that Atty. Miguel R. Armovit
concluding section notes that "the preceding chapters
Christian J. Tams made known his sentiments on the (Atty. Armovit) signed the Statement although his
show that the concept is now a part of the reality of
alleged plagiarism issue to the Court.30 We quote name was not included among the signatories in the
international law, established in the jurisprudence of
Prof. Tams letter here: previous copies submitted to the Court. Thus, the
courts and the practice of States" (p. 309). total number of ostensible signatories to the
Statement remained at 37.
Glasgow, 18 August 2010 With due respect to your Honourable Court, I am at a
loss to see how my work should have been cited to The Ethics Committee referred this matter to the
Vinuya, et al. v. Executive Secretary et al. (G.R. No. support as it seemingly has the opposite Court en banc since the same Statement, having been
162230) approach. More generally, I am concerned at the way formally submitted by Dean Leonen on August 11,
in which your Honourable Courts Judgment has 2010, was already under consideration by the Court.33
Hon. Renato C. Corona, Chief Justice drawn on scholarly work without properly
acknowledging it.
In a Resolution dated October 19, 2010, the Court en that healthy criticism only goes so far. Many types of the copy of the Resolution, why they should not be
banc made the following observations regarding the criticism leveled at the judiciary cross the line to disciplined as members of the Bar for violation of
UP Law Faculty Statement: become harmful and irresponsible attacks. These Canons 1,36 11 and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of
potentially devastating attacks and unjust criticism the Code of Professional Responsibility.37
Notably, while the statement was meant to reflect the can threaten the independence of the judiciary. The
educators opinion on the allegations of plagiarism court must "insist on being permitted to proceed to Dean Leonen was likewise directed to show cause
against Justice Del Castillo, they treated such the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, within the same period why he should not be
allegation not only as an established fact, but a truth. free from outside interference obstructive of its disciplinarily dealt with for violation of Canon 10,
In particular, they expressed dissatisfaction over functions and tending to embarrass the administration Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03 for submitting through
Justice Del Castillos explanation on how he cited the of justice." his letter dated August 10, 2010, during the pendency
primary sources of the quoted portions and yet of G.R. No. 162230 and of the investigation before
arrived at a contrary conclusion to those of the The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable the Ethics Committee, for the consideration of the
authors of the articles supposedly plagiarized. purpose for the facultys less than objective Court en banc, a dummy which is not a true and
comments except to discredit the April 28, 2010 faithful reproduction of the UP Law Faculty
Beyond this, however, the statement bore certain Decision in the Vinuya case and undermine the Statement.38
remarks which raise concern for the Court. The Courts honesty, integrity and competence in
opening sentence alone is a grim preamble to addressing the motion for its reconsideration. As if In the same Resolution, the present controversy was
the institutional attack that lay ahead. It reads: the case on the comfort womens claims is not docketed as a regular administrative matter.
controversial enough, the UP Law faculty would fan
the flames and invite resentment against a resolution
An extraordinary act of injustice has again been Summaries of the Pleadings Filed by Respondents in
that would not reverse the said decision. This
committed against the brave Filipinas who had Response to the October 19, 2010 Show Cause
runs contrary to their obligation as law professors and
suffered abuse during a time of war. Resolution
officers of the Court to be the first to uphold the
dignity and authority of this Court, to which they owe
The first paragraph concludes with a reference to the fidelity according to the oath they have taken as On November 19, 2010, within the extension for
decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary as attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the filing granted by the Court, respondents filed the
a reprehensible act of dishonesty and administration of justice.35 x x x. (Citations omitted; following pleadings:
misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land. x emphases and underscoring supplied.)
x x. (1) Compliance dated November 18, 2010
Thus, the Court directed Attys. Marvic M.V.F. by counsels for 35 of the 37 respondents,
The insult to the members of the Court Leonen, Froilan M. Bacungan, Pacifico A. Agabin, excluding Prof. Owen Lynch and Prof. Raul
was aggravated by imputations of deliberately Merlin M. Magallona, Salvador T. Carlota, Carmelo T. Vasquez, in relation to the charge of
delaying the resolution of the said case, its dismissal V. Sison, Patricia R.P. Salvador Daway, Dante B. violation of Canons 1, 11 and 13 and Rules
on the basis of "polluted sources," the Courts alleged Gatmaytan, Theodore O. Te, Florin T. Hilbay, Jay L. 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional
indifference to the cause of petitioners [in the Vinuya Batongbacal, Evelyn (Leo) D. Battad, Gwen G. De Responsibility;
case], as well as the supposed alarming lack of Vera, Solomon F. Lumba, Rommel J. Casis, Jose
concern of the members of the Court for even the Gerardo A. Alampay, Miguel R. Armovit, Arthur P. (2) Compliance and Reservation dated
most basic values of decency and respect.34 x x x. Autea, Rosa Maria J. Bautista, Mark R. Bocobo, Dan November 18, 2010 by Prof. Rosa Maria T.
(Underscoring ours.) P. Calica, Tristan A. Catindig, Sandra Marie O. Juan-Bautista in relation to the same charge
Coronel, Rosario O. Gallo, Concepcion L. Jardeleza, in par. (1);
In the same Resolution, the Court went on to state Antonio G.M. La Via, Carina C. Laforteza, Jose C.
that: Laureta, Owen J. Lynch, Rodolfo Noel S. Quimbo, (3) Compliance dated November 19, 2010
Antonio M. Santos, Gmeleen Faye B. Tomboc, by counsel for Prof. Raul T. Vasquez in
While most agree that the right to criticize the Nicholas Felix L. Ty, Evalyn G. Ursua, Raul T. relation to the same charge in par. (1);
judiciary is critical to maintaining a free and Vasquez, Susan D. Villanueva and Dina D. Lucenario
democratic society, there is also a general consensus to show cause, within ten (10) days from receipt of
(4) Compliance dated November 19, 2010 its integrity and credibility and to ensure misrepresentation charges."51 Respondents
by counsels for Dean Leonen, in relation to continued confidence in the legal system. claimed that it was their perception of the
the charge of violation of Canon 10, Rules Their noble motive was purportedly Courts indifference to the dangers posed by
10.01, 10.02 and 10.03; and evidenced by the portion of their Statement the plagiarism allegations against Justice
"focusing on constructive Del Castillo that impelled them to urgently
(5) Manifestation dated November 19, 2010 action."45 Respondents call in the Statement take a public stand on the issue.
by counsel for Prof. Owen Lynch. for the Court "to provide clear and concise
guidance to the Bench and Bar to ensure (b) The "correctness" of respondents
only the highest quality of legal research and position that Justice Del Castillo committed
Common Compliance of 35 Respondents (Excluding
writing in adjudication," was reputedly "in plagiarism and should be held accountable
Prof. Owen Lynch and Prof. Raul Vasquez)
keeping with strictures enjoining lawyers to in accordance with the standards of
participate in the development of the legal academic writing
Thirty-five (35) of the respondent UP Law professors system by initiating or supporting efforts in
filed on November 19, 2010 a common compliance law reform and in the improvement of the
which was signed by their respective counsels (the A significant portion of the Common
administration of justice" (under Canon 4
Common Compliance). In the "Preface" of said Compliance is devoted to a discussion of the
of the Code of Professional Responsibility)
Common Compliance, respondents stressed that merits of respondents charge of plagiarism
and to "promote respect for the law and
"[they] issued the Restoring Integrity Statement in against Justice Del Castillo. Relying on
legal processes" (under Canon 1,
the discharge of the solemn duties and trust reposed University of the Philippines Board of
id.).46 Furthermore, as academics, they
upon them as teachers in the profession of law, and Regents v. Court of Appeals52 and foreign
allegedly have a "special interest and duty to
as members of the Bar to speak out on a matter of materials and jurisprudence, respondents
vigilantly guard against plagiarism and
public concern and one that is of vital interest to essentially argue that their position
misrepresentation because these unwelcome
them."39 They likewise alleged that "they acted with regarding the plagiarism charge against
occurrences have a profound impact in the
the purest of intentions" and pointed out that "none of Justice Del Castillo is the correct view and
academe, especially in our law schools."47
them was involved either as party or counsel"40 in the that they are therefore justified in issuing
Vinuya case. Further, respondents "note with their Restoring Integrity Statement.
Respondents further "[called] on this Court Attachments to the Common Compliance
concern" that the Show Cause Resolutions findings
not to misconstrue the Restoring Integrity included, among others: (i) the letter dated
and conclusions were "a prejudgment that
Statement as an institutional attack x x x October 28, 2010 of Peter B. Payoyo, LL.M,
respondents indeed are in contempt, have breached
on the basis of its first and ninth Ph.D.,53 sent to Chief Justice Corona through
their obligations as law professors and officers of the
paragraphs."48 They further clarified that at Justice Sereno, alleging that the Vinuya
Court, and have violated Canons [1], 11 and 13 and
the time the Statement was allegedly drafted decision likewise lifted without proper
Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional
and agreed upon, it appeared to them the attribution the text from a legal article by
Responsibility."41
Court "was not going to take any action on Mariana Salazar Albornoz that appeared in
the grave and startling allegations of the Anuario Mexicano De Derecho
By way of explanation, the respondents emphasized plagiarism and Internacional and from an International
the following points: misrepresentation."49 According to Court of Justice decision; and (ii) a 2008
respondents, the bases for their belief were Human Rights Law Review Article entitled
(a) Respondents alleged noble intentions (i) the news article published on July 21, "Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and
2010 in the Philippine Daily Inquirer International Human Rights Law" by
In response to the charges of failure to wherein Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Michael OFlaherty and John Fisher, in
observe due respect to legal processes42 and Marquez was reported to have said that support of their charge that Justice Del
the courts43 and of tending to influence, or Chief Justice Corona would not order an Castillo also lifted passages from said article
giving the appearance of influencing the inquiry into the matter;50 and (ii) the July 22, without proper attribution, but this time, in
Court44 in the issuance of their Statement, 2010 letter of Justice Del Castillo which his ponencia in Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v.
respondents assert that their intention was they claimed "did nothing but to downplay Commission on Elections.54
not to malign the Court but rather to defend the gravity of the plagiarism and
(c) Respondents belief that they are being the Manila Standard Today on July performing their duties as members of the
"singled out" by the Court when others have 31, 2010;62 Bar, officers of the court, and teachers of
likewise spoken on the "plagiarism issue" law, but also as citizens of a democracy who
(viii) News reports regarding the are constitutionally protected in the exercise
In the Common Compliance, respondents statement of Dean Cesar Villanueva of free speech."66 In support of this
likewise asserted that "the plagiarism and of the Ateneo de Manila University contention, they cited United States v.
misrepresentation allegations are legitimate School of Law on the calls for the Bustos,67 In re: Atty. Vicente Raul
public issues."55 They identified various resignation of Justice Del Castillo Almacen, 68 and In the Matter of Petition for
published reports and opinions, in agreement published in The Manila Bulletin, Declaratory Relief Re: Constitutionality of
with and in opposition to the stance of the Philippine Star and the Republic Act 4880, Gonzales v. Commission
respondents, on the issue of plagiarism, Business Mirror on August 11, on Elections.69
specifically: 2010;63
(e) Academic freedom
(i) Newsbreak report on July 19, (ix) News report on expressions of
2010 by Aries Rufo and Purple support for Justice Del Castillo In paragraphs 31 to 34 of the Common Compliance,
Romero;56 from a former dean of the respondents asserted that their Statement was also
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng issued in the exercise of their academic freedom as
(ii) Column of Ramon Tulfo which Maynila, the Philippine teachers in an institution of higher learning. They
appeared in the Philippine Daily Constitutional Association, the relied on Section 5 of the University of the
Inquirer on July 24, 2010;57 Judges Association of Bulacan and Philippines Charter of 2008 which provided that
the Integrated Bar of the "[t]he national university has the right and
Philippines Bulacan Chapter responsibility to exercise academic freedom." They
(iii) Editorial of the Philippine
published in the Philippine Star on likewise adverted to Garcia v. The Faculty Admission
Daily Inquirer published on July
August 16, 2010;64 and Committee, Loyola School of Theology70 which they
25, 2010;58
claimed recognized the extent and breadth of such
(x) Letter of the Dean of the Liceo freedom as to encourage a free and healthy
(iv) Letter dated July 22, 2010 of discussion and communication of a faculty members
de Cagayan University College of
Justice Del Castillo published in field of study without fear of reprisal. It is
Law published in the Philippine
the Philippine Star on July 30, respondents view that had they remained silent on
Daily Inquirer on August 10,
2010;59 the plagiarism issue in the Vinuya decision they
2010.65
would have "compromised [their] integrity and
(v) Column of Former Intellectual credibility as teachers; [their silence] would have
In view of the foregoing, respondents
Property Office Director General created a culture and generation of students,
alleged that this Court has singled them out
Adrian Cristobal, Jr. published in professionals, even lawyers, who would lack the
for sanctions and the charge in the Show
the Business Mirror on August 5, competence and discipline for research and pleading;
Cause Resolution dated October 19, 2010
2010;60 or, worse, [that] their silence would have
that they may have violated specific canons
communicated to the public that plagiarism and
of the Code of Professional Responsibility is
(vi) Column of Former Chief misrepresentation are inconsequential matters and
unfair and without basis.
Justice Artemio Panganiban that intellectual integrity has no bearing or relevance
published in the Philippine Daily to ones conduct."71
(d) Freedom of expression
Inquirer on August 8, 2010;61
In closing, respondents Common Compliance
In paragraphs 28 to 30 of the Common exhorted this Court to consider the following portion
(vii) News report regarding Senator
Compliance, respondents briefly discussed of the dissenting opinion of Justice George A.
Francis Pangilinans call for the
their position that in issuing their Statement, Malcolm in Salcedo v. Hernandez,72 to wit:
resignation of Justice Del Castillo
"they should be seen as not only to be
published in the Daily Tribune and
Respect for the courts can better be obtained by 1. the Show Cause Resolution be adopted the allegations in the Common Compliance
following a calm and impartial course from the bench set for hearing; with some additional averments.
than by an attempt to compel respect for the judiciary
by chastising a lawyer for a too vigorous or 2. respondents be given a fair and Prof. Juan-Bautista reiterated that her due process
injudicious exposition of his side of a case. The full opportunity to refute and/or rights allegedly entitled her to challenge the findings
Philippines needs lawyers of independent thought address the findings and and conclusions in the Show Cause Resolution.
and courageous bearing, jealous of the interests of conclusions of fact in the Show Furthermore, "[i]f the Restoring Integrity Statement
their clients and unafraid of any court, high or low, Cause Resolution (including can be considered indirect contempt, under Section 3
and the courts will do well tolerantly to overlook especially the finding and of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, such may be
occasional intemperate language soon to be regretted conclusion of a lack of malicious punished only after charge and hearing."75
by the lawyer which affects in no way the outcome of intent), and in that connection, that
a case.73 appropriate procedures and Prof. Juan-Bautista stressed that respondents signed
schedules for hearing be adopted the Statement "in good faith and with the best
On the matter of the reliefs to which respondents and defined that will allow them intentions to protect the Supreme Court by asking
believe they are entitled, the Common Compliance the full and fair opportunity to one member to resign."76 For her part, Prof. Juan-
stated, thus: require the production of and to Bautista intimated that her deep disappointment and
present testimonial, documentary, sadness for the plight of the Malaya Lolas were what
WHEREFORE: and object evidence bearing on the motivated her to sign the Statement.
plagiarism and misrepresentation
issues in Vinuya v. Executive
A. Respondents, as citizens of a democracy, On the point of academic freedom, Prof. Juan-
Secretary (G.R. No. 162230, April
professors of law, members of the Bar and Bautista cited jurisprudence77 which in her view
28, 2010) and In the Matter of the
officers of the Court, respectfully pray that: highlighted that academic freedom is constitutionally
Charges of Plagiarism, etc. Against guaranteed to institutions of higher learning such that
Associate Justice Mariano C. Del
1. the foregoing be noted; and schools have the freedom to determine for themselves
Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC); who may teach, what may be taught, how lessons
and shall be taught and who may be admitted to study and
2. the Court reconsider and reverse
that courts have no authority to interfere in the
its adverse findings in the Show 3. respondents be given fair and schools exercise of discretion in these matters in the
Cause Resolution, including its full access to the transcripts, absence of grave abuse of discretion. She claims the
conclusions that respondents have: records, drafts, reports and Court has encroached on the academic freedom of the
[a] breached their "obligation as submissions in or relating to, and University of the Philippines and other universities
law professors and officers of the accorded the opportunity to cross- on their right to determine how lessons shall be
Court to be the first to uphold the examine the witnesses who were or taught.
dignity and authority of this Court, could have been called in In The
and not to promote distrust in Matter of the Charges of
the administration of justice;" and Lastly, Prof. Juan-Bautista asserted that the Statement
Plagiarism, etc. Against Associate
[b] committed "violations of was an exercise of respondents constitutional right to
Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo
Canons 10, 11, and 13 and Rules freedom of expression that can only be curtailed
(A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC).74
1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of when there is grave and imminent danger to public
Professional Responsibility." safety, public morale, public health or other
Compliance and Reservation of Prof. Rosa Maria T. legitimate public interest.78
Juan-Bautista
B. In the event the Honorable Court declines
to grant the foregoing prayer, respondents Compliance of Prof. Raul T. Vasquez
Although already included in the Common
respectfully pray, in the alternative, and in
Compliance, Prof. Rosa Maria T. Juan-Bautista (Prof.
assertion of their due process rights, that On November 19, 2010, Prof. Raul T. Vasquez (Prof.
Juan-Bautista) filed a separate Compliance and
before final judgment be rendered: Vasquez) filed a separate Compliance by registered
Reservation (the Bautista Compliance), wherein she
mail (the Vasquez Compliance). In said Compliance, Also in contrast to his colleagues, Prof. Vasquez was which presently serves as the official file
Prof. Vasquez narrated the circumstances surrounding willing to concede that he "might have been remiss in copy of the Deans Office in the UP College
his signing of the Statement. He alleged that the correctly assessing the effects of such language [in of Law that may be signed by other faculty
Vinuya decision was a topic of conversation among the Statement] and could have been more members who still wish to. It bears the
the UP Law faculty early in the first semester (of careful."86 He ends his discussion with a respectful actual signatures of the thirty- seven original
academic year 2010-11) because it reportedly submission that with his explanation, he has signatories to Restoring Integrity I above
contained citations not properly attributed to the faithfully complied with the Show Cause Resolution their printed names and the notation
sources; that he was shown a copy of the Statement and that the Court will rule that he had not in any "(SGD.") and, in addition, the actual
by a clerk of the Office of the Dean on his way to his manner violated his oath as a lawyer and officer of signatures of eight (8) other members of the
class; and that, agreeing in principle with the main the Court. faculty above their handwritten or
theme advanced by the Statement, he signed the same typewritten names.87
in utmost good faith.79 Separate Compliance of Dean Leonen regarding the
charge of violation of Canon 10 in relation to his For purposes of this discussion, only Restoring
In response to the directive from this Court to explain submission of a "dummy" of the UP Law Faculty Integrity I and Restoring Integrity II are relevant
why he should not be disciplined as a member of the Statement to this Court since what Dean Leonen has been directed to explain
Bar under the Show Cause Resolution, Prof. Vasquez are the discrepancies in the signature pages of these
also took the position that a lawyer has the right, like In his Compliance, Dean Leonen claimed that there two documents. Restoring Integrity III was never
all citizens in a democratic society, to comment on were three drafts/versions of the UP Law Faculty submitted to this Court.
acts of public officers. He invited the attention of the Statement, which he described as follows:
Court to the following authorities: (a) In re: Vicente On how Restoring Integrity I and Restoring Integrity
Sotto;80 (b) In re: Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen;81 and II were prepared and came about, Dean Leonen
"Restoring Integrity I" which bears the
(c) a discussion appearing in American Jurisprudence alleged, thus:
entire roster of the faculty of the UP College
(AmJur) 2d.82 He claims that he "never had any of Law in its signing pages, and the actual
intention to unduly influence, nor entertained any signatures of the thirty-seven (37) faculty 2.2 On 27 July 2010, sensing the emergence
illusion that he could or should influence, [the Court] members subject of the Show Cause of a relatively broad agreement in the
in its disposition of the Vinuya case"83 and that Resolution. A copy was filed with the faculty on a draft statement, Dean Leonen
"attacking the integrity of [the Court] was the farthest Honorable Court by Roque and Butuyan on instructed his staff to print the draft and
thing on respondents mind when he signed the 31 August 2010 in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC. circulate it among the faculty members so
Statement."84 Unlike his colleagues, who wish to that those who wished to may sign. For this
impress upon this Court the purported homogeneity
"Restoring Integrity II" which does not purpose, the staff encoded the law faculty
of the views on what constitutes plagiarism, Prof.
bear any actual physical signature, but roster to serve as the printed drafts signing
Vasquez stated in his Compliance that:
which reflects as signatories the names of pages. Thus did the first printed draft of the
thirty-seven (37) members of the faculty Restoring Integrity Statement, Restoring
13. Before this Honorable Court rendered its Integrity I, come into being.
with the notation "(SGD.)". A copy of
Decision dated 12 October 2010, some espoused the Restoring Integrity II was publicly and
view that willful and deliberate intent to commit physically posted in the UP College of Law 2.3. As of 27 July 2010, the date of the
plagiarism is an essential element of the same. on 10 August 2010. Another copy of Restoring Integrity Statement, Dean Leonen
Others, like respondent, were of the opinion that Restoring Integrity II was also officially was unaware that a Motion for
plagiarism is committed regardless of the intent of received by the Honorable Court from the Reconsideration of the Honorable Courts
the perpetrator, the way it has always been viewed in Dean of the UP College of Law on 11 Decision in Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary
the academe. This uncertainty made the issue a fair August 2010, almost three weeks before the (G.R. No. 162230, 28 April 2010) had
topic for academic discussion in the College. Now, filing of Restoring Integrity I. already been filed, or that the Honorable
this Honorable Court has ruled that plagiarism Court was in the process of convening its
presupposes deliberate intent to steal anothers work
"Restoring Integrity III" which is a Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards
and to pass it off as ones own.85 (Emphases
reprinting of Restoring Integrity II, and in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC.
supplied.)
2.4. Dean Leonens staff then circulated signing pages, Dean Leonen noticed the its contents. However, Justice Mendoza did
Restoring Integrity I among the members of inclusion of the name of Justice Mendoza not exactly say that he authorized the dean
the faculty. Some faculty members visited among the "(SGD.)" signatories. As Justice to sign the Restoring Integrity Statement.
the Deans Office to sign the document or Mendoza was not among those who had Rather, he inquired if he could authorize the
had it brought to their classrooms in the physically signed Restoring Integrity I when dean to sign it for him as he was about to
College of Law, or to their offices or it was previously circulated, Dean Leonen leave for the United States. The deans staff
residences. Still other faculty members who, called the attention of his staff to the informed him that they would, at any rate,
for one reason or another, were unable to inclusion of the Justices name among the still try to bring the Restoring Integrity
sign Restoring Integrity I at that time, "(SGD.)" signatories in Restoring Integrity Statement to him.
nevertheless conveyed to Dean Leonen their II.
assurances that they would sign as soon as 2.22.2. Due to some administrative
they could manage. 2.8. Dean Leonen was told by his difficulties, Justice Mendoza was unable to
administrative officer that she had spoken to sign the Restoring Integrity Statement
2.5. Sometime in the second week of Justice Mendoza over the phone on Friday, before he left for the U.S. the following
August, judging that Restoring Integrity I 06 August 2010. According to her, Justice week.
had been circulated long enough, Dean Mendoza had authorized the dean to sign the
Leonen instructed his staff to reproduce the Restoring Integrity Statement for him as he 2.22.3. The staff was able to bring Restoring
statement in a style and manner appropriate agreed fundamentally with its contents. Also Integrity III to Justice Mendoza when he
for posting in the College of Law. Following according to her, Justice Mendoza was went to the College to teach on 24
his own established practice in relation to unable at that time to sign the Restoring September 2010, a day after his arrival from
significant public issuances, he directed Integrity Statement himself as he was the U.S. This time, Justice Mendoza
them to reformat the signing pages so that leaving for the United States the following declined to sign.94
only the names of those who signed the first week. It would later turn out that this
printed draft would appear, together with the account was not entirely According to the Dean:
corresponding "(SGD.)" note following each accurate.91 (Underscoring and italics
name. Restoring Integrity II thus came into supplied.)
being.88 2.23. It was only at this time that Dean Leonen
realized the true import of the call he received from
Dean Leonen claimed that he "had no reason to doubt Justice Mendoza in late September. Indeed, Justice
According to Dean Leonen, the "practice of his administrative officer, however, and so placed full Mendoza confirmed that by the time the hard copy of
eliminating blanks opposite or above the names of reliance on her account"92 as "[t]here were indeed the Restoring Integrity Statement was brought to him
non-signatories in the final draft of significant public other faculty members who had also authorized the shortly after his arrival from the U.S., he declined to
issuances, is meant not so much for aesthetic Dean to indicate that they were signatories, even sign it because it had already become controversial.
considerations as to secure the integrity of such though they were at that time unable to affix their At that time, he predicted that the Court would take
documents."89 He likewise claimed that "[p]osting signatures physically to the document."93 some form of action against the faculty. By then, and
statements with blanks would be an open invitation to under those circumstances, he wanted to show due
vandals and pranksters."90 However, after receiving the Show Cause Resolution, deference to the Honorable Court, being a former
Dean Leonen and his staff reviewed the Associate Justice and not wishing to unduly
With respect to the inclusion of Justice Mendozas circumstances surrounding their effort to secure aggravate the situation by signing the
name as among the signatories in Restoring Integrity Justice Mendozas signature. It would turn out that Statement.95(Emphases supplied.)
II when in fact he did not sign Restoring Integrity I, this was what actually transpired:
Dean Leonen attributed the mistake to a With respect to the omission of Atty. Armovits name
miscommunication involving his administrative 2.22.1. On Friday, 06 August 2010, when the in the signature page of Restoring Integrity II when
officer. In his Compliance, he narrated that: deans staff talked to Justice Mendoza on the he was one of the signatories of Restoring Integrity I
phone, he [Justice Mendoza] indeed initially and the erroneous description in Dean Leonens
2.7. Upon being presented with a draft of agreed to sign the Restoring Integrity August 10, 2010 letter that the version of the
Restoring Integrity II with the reformatted Statement as he fundamentally agreed with
Statement submitted to the Court was signed by 38 Statement] through the appropriate channels by to provide an example of courage and self-
members of the UP Law Faculty, it was explained in transmitting the same to Honorable Chief Justice assertiveness to their pupils can speak only in
the Compliance that: Corona for the latters information and proper timorous whispers."107 Relying on the doctrine in In
disposition with the hope that its points would be the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Relief Re:
Respondent Atty. Miguel Armovit physically signed duly considered by the Honorable Court en Constitutionality of Republic Act 4880, Gonzales v.
Restoring Integrity I when it was circulated to him. banc."100 Citing Rudecon Management Corporation v. Commission on Elections,108 Prof. Lynch believed
However, his name was inadvertently left out by Camacho,101 Dean Leonen posits that the required that the Statement did not pose any danger, clear or
Dean Leonens staff in the reformatting of the signing quantum of proof has not been met in this case and present, of any substantive evil so as to remove it
pages in Restoring Integrity II. The dean assumed that no dubious character or motivation for the act from the protective mantle of the Bill of Rights (i.e.,
that his name was still included in the reformatted complained of existed to warrant an administrative referring to the constitutional guarantee on free
signing pages, and so mentioned in his cover note to sanction for violation of the standard of honesty speech).109 He also stated that he "has read the
Chief Justice Corona that 38 members of the law provided for by the Code of Professional Compliance of the other respondents to the Show
faculty signed (the original 37 plus Justice Responsibility.102 Cause Resolution" and that "he signed the Restoring
Mendoza.)96 Integrity Statement for the same reasons they did."110
Dean Leonen ends his Compliance with an
Dean Leonen argues that he should not be deemed to enumeration of nearly identical reliefs as the ISSUES
have submitted a dummy of the Statement that was Common Compliance, including the prayers for a
not a true and faithful reproduction of the same. He hearing and for access to the records, evidence and Based on the Show Cause Resolution and a perusal of
emphasized that the main body of the Statement was witnesses allegedly relevant not only in this case but the submissions of respondents, the material issues to
unchanged in all its three versions and only the also in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, the ethical be resolved in this case are as follows:
signature pages were not the same. This purportedly investigation involving Justice Del Castillo.
is merely "reflective of [the Statements] essential 1.) Does the Show Cause Resolution deny
nature as a live public manifesto meant to Manifestation of Prof. Owen Lynch (Lynch respondents their freedom of expression?
continuously draw adherents to its message, its Manifestation)
signatory portion is necessarily evolving and 2.) Does the Show Cause Resolution violate
dynamic x x x many other printings of [the For his part, Prof. Owen Lynch (Prof. Lynch) respondents academic freedom as law
Statement] may be made in the future, each one manifests to this Court that he is not a member of the professors?
reflecting the same text but with more and more Philippine bar; but he is a member of the bar of the
signatories."97 Adverting to criminal law by analogy, State of Minnesota. He alleges that he first taught as a
Dean Leonen claims that "this is not an instance 3.) Do the submissions of respondents
visiting professor at the UP College of Law in 1981
where it has been made to appear in a document that satisfactorily explain why they should not be
to 1988 and returned in the same capacity in 2010.
a person has participated in an act when the latter did disciplined as Members of the Bar under
He further alleges that "[h]e subscribes to the
not in fact so participate"98 for he "did not Canons 1, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and
principle, espoused by this Court and the Supreme
misrepresent which members of the faculty of the UP 11.05 of the Code of Professional
Court of the United States, that [d]ebate on public
College of Law had agreed with the Restoring Responsibility?
issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open
Integrity Statement proper and/or had expressed their and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and
desire to be signatories thereto."99 sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government 4.) Does the separate Compliance of Dean
and public officials."103 In signing the Statement, he Leonen satisfactorily explain why he should
In this regard, Dean Leonen believes that he had not believes that "the right to speak means the right to not be disciplined as a Member of the Bar
committed any violation of Canon 10 or Rules 10.01 speak effectively."104 Citing the dissenting opinions in under Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02 and
and 10.02 for he did not mislead nor misrepresent to Manila Public School Teachers Association v. 10.03?
the Court the contents of the Statement or the Laguio, Jr.,105 Prof. Lynch argued that "[f]or speech to
identities of the UP Law faculty members who agreed be effective, it must be forceful enough to make the 5.) Are respondents entitled to have the
with, or expressed their desire to be signatories to, the intended recipients listen"106 and "[t]he quality of Show Cause Resolution set for hearing and
Statement. He also asserts that he did not commit any education would deteriorate in an atmosphere of in relation to such hearing, are respondents
violation of Rule 10.03 as he "coursed [the repression, when the very teachers who are supposed entitled to require the production or
presentation of evidence bearing on the To reiterate, it was not the circumstance that While most agree that the right to criticize the
plagiarism and misrepresentation issues in respondents expressed a belief that Justice Del judiciary is critical to maintaining a free and
the Vinuya case (G.R. No. 162230) and the Castillo was guilty of plagiarism but rather their democratic society, there is also a general consensus
ethics case against Justice Del Castillo expression of that belief as "not only as an that healthy criticism only goes so far. Many types of
(A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC) and to have access established fact, but a truth"111 when it was "[o]f criticism leveled at the judiciary cross the line to
to the records and transcripts of, and the public knowledge [that there was] an ongoing become harmful and irresponsible attacks. These
witnesses and evidence presented, or could investigation precisely to determine the truth of such potentially devastating attacks and unjust criticism
have been presented, in the ethics case allegations."112 It was also pointed out in the Show can threaten the independence of the judiciary. The
against Justice Del Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7- Cause Resolution that there was a pending motion for court must "insist on being permitted to proceed to
17-SC)? reconsideration of the Vinuya decision.113 The Show the disposition of its business in an orderly manner,
Cause Resolution made no objections to the portions free from outside interference obstructive of its
DISCUSSION of the Restoring Integrity Statement that respondents functions and tending to embarrass the administration
claimed to be "constructive" but only asked of justice."
respondents to explain those portions of the said
The Show Cause Resolution does not deny
Statement that by no stretch of the imagination could The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable
respondents their freedom of expression.
be considered as fair or constructive, to wit: purpose for the facultys less than objective
comments except to discredit the April 28, 2010
It is respondents collective claim that the Court, with
Beyond this, however, the statement bore certain Decision in the Vinuya case and undermine the
the issuance of the Show Cause Resolution, has
remarks which raise concern for the Court. The Courts honesty, integrity and competence in
interfered with respondents constitutionally
opening sentence alone is a grim preamble to addressing the motion for its reconsideration. As if
mandated right to free speech and expression. It
the institutional attack that lay ahead. It reads: the case on the comfort womens claims is not
appears that the underlying assumption behind
controversial enough, the UP Law faculty would fan
respondents assertion is the misconception that this
An extraordinary act of injustice has again been the flames and invite resentment against a resolution
Court is denying them the right to criticize the
committed against the brave Filipinas who had that would not reverse the said decision. This
Courts decisions and actions, and that this Court
suffered abuse during a time of war. runs contrary to their obligation as law professors and
seeks to "silence" respondent law professors
officers of the Court to be the first to uphold the
dissenting view on what they characterize as a
dignity and authority of this Court, to which they owe
"legitimate public issue." The first paragraph concludes with a reference to the
fidelity according to the oath they have taken as
decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary as
attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the
This is far from the truth. A reading of the Show a reprehensible act of dishonesty and
administration of justice.115 x x x. (Citations omitted;
Cause Resolution will plainly show that it was misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land. x
emphases and underscoring supplied.)
neither the fact that respondents had criticized a x x.
decision of the Court nor that they had charged one of
Indeed, in a long line of cases, including those cited
its members of plagiarism that motivated the said The insult to the members of the Court
in respondents submissions, this Court has held that
Resolution. It was the manner of the criticism and the was aggravated by imputations of deliberately
the right to criticize the courts and judicial officers
contumacious language by which respondents, who delaying the resolution of the said case, its dismissal
must be balanced against the equally primordial
are not parties nor counsels in the Vinuya case, have on the basis of "polluted sources," the Courts alleged
concern that the independence of the Judiciary be
expressed their opinion in favor of the petitioners in indifference to the cause of petitioners [in the Vinuya
protected from due influence or interference. In cases
the said pending case for the "proper disposition" and case], as well as the supposed alarming lack of
where the critics are not only citizens but members of
consideration of the Court that gave rise to said concern of the members of the Court for even the
the Bar, jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the
Resolution. The Show Cause Resolution most basic values of decency and respect.114 x x x.
painstakingly enumerated the statements that the (Underscoring ours.) authority of this Court to discipline lawyers whose
statements regarding the courts and fellow lawyers,
Court considered excessive and uncalled for under
whether judicial or extrajudicial, have exceeded the
the circumstances surrounding the issuance, To be sure, the Show Cause Resolution itself limits of fair comment and common decency.
publication, and later submission to this Court of the recognized respondents freedom of expression when
UP Law facultys Restoring Integrity Statement. it stated that:
As early as the 1935 case of Salcedo v. particularly in judicial matters, in the consideration of upon him the high privilege, not a right (Malcolm,
Hernandez,116 the Court found Atty. Vicente J. questions submitted for resolution. Legal Ethics, 158 and 160), of being what he now
Francisco both guilty of contempt and liable is: a priest of justice (In re Thatcher, 80 Ohio St.
administratively for the following paragraph in his There is no question that said paragraph of Attorney Rep., 492, 669), but also because in so doing, he
second motion for reconsideration: Vicente J. Francisco's motion contains a more or less neither creates nor promotes distrust in the
veiled threat to the court because it is insinuated administration of justice, and prevents anybody from
We should like frankly and respectfully to make it of therein, after the author shows the course which the harboring and encouraging discontent which, in many
record that the resolution of this court, denying our voters of Tiaong should follow in case he fails in his cases, is the source of disorder, thus undermining the
motion for reconsideration, is absolutely erroneous attempt, that they will resort to the press for the foundation upon which rests that bulwark called
and constitutes an outrage to the rights of the purpose of denouncing, what he claims to be a judicial power to which those who are aggrieved turn
petitioner Felipe Salcedo and a mockery of the judicial outrage of which his client has been the for protection and relief.119 (Emphases supplied.)
popular will expressed at the polls in the municipality victim; and because he states in a threatening manner
of Tiaong, Tayabas. We wish to exhaust all the means with the intention of predisposing the mind of the Thus, the lawyer in Salcedo was fined
within our power in order that this error may be reader against the court, thus creating an atmosphere and reprimanded for his injudicious statements in
corrected by the very court which has committed it, of prejudices against it in order to make it odious in his pleading, by accusing the Court of "erroneous
because we should not want that some citizen, the public eye, that decisions of the nature of that ruling." Here, the respondents Statement goes way
particularly some voter of the municipality of Tiaong, referred to in his motion promote distrust in the beyond merely ascribing error to the Court.
Tayabas, resort to the press publicly to denounce, as administration of justice and increase the proselytes
he has a right to do, the judicial outrage of which the of sakdalism, a movement with seditious and Other cases cited by respondents likewise espouse
herein petitioner has been the victim, and because it revolutionary tendencies the activities of which, as is rulings contrary to their position. In re: Atty. Vicente
is our utmost desire to safeguard the prestige of this of public knowledge, occurred in this country a few Raul Almacen,120 cited in the Common Compliance
honorable court and of each and every member days ago. This cannot mean otherwise than contempt and the Vasquez Compliance, was an instance where
thereof in the eyes of the public. But, at the same of the dignity of the court and disrespect of the the Court indefinitely suspended a member of the
time we wish to state sincerely that erroneous authority thereof on the part of Attorney Vicente J. Bar for filing and releasing to the press a "Petition to
decisions like these, which the affected party and his Francisco, because he presumes that the court is so Surrender Lawyers Certificate of Title" in protest of
thousands of voters will necessarily consider unjust, devoid of the sense of justice that, if he did not resort what he claimed was a great injustice to his client
increase the proselytes of 'sakdalism' and make the to intimidation, it would maintain its error committed by the Supreme Court. In the decision, the
public lose confidence in the administration of notwithstanding the fact that it may be proven, with petition was described, thus:
justice.117 (Emphases supplied.) good reasons, that it has acted
erroneously.118 (Emphases supplied.) He indicts this Court, in his own phrase, as a tribunal
The highlighted phrases were considered by the "peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas for
Court as neither justified nor necessary and further Significantly, Salcedo is the decision from which justice, who ignore without reasons their own
held that: respondents culled their quote from applicable decisions and commit culpable violations
the minority view of Justice Malcolm. Moreover, of the Constitution with impunity." His client's he
[I]n order to call the attention of the court in a special Salcedo concerned statements made in a pleading continues, who was deeply aggrieved by this Court's
way to the essential points relied upon in his filed by a counsel in a case, unlike the respondents "unjust judgment," has become "one of the sacrificial
argument and to emphasize the force thereof, the here, who are neither parties nor counsels in victims before the altar of hypocrisy." In the same
many reasons stated in his said motion were the Vinuya case and therefore, do not have any breath that he alludes to the classic symbol of justice,
sufficient and the phrases in question were standing at all to interfere in the Vinuya case. Instead he ridicules the members of this Court, saying "that
superfluous. In order to appeal to reason and justice, of supporting respondents theory, Salcedo is justice as administered by the present members of the
it is highly improper and amiss to make trouble and authority for the following principle: Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and
resort to threats, as Attorney Vicente J. Francisco has dumb." He then vows to argue the cause of his client
done, because both means are annoying and good As a member of the bar and an officer of this court, "in the people's forum," so that "the people may
practice can never sanction them by reason of their Attorney Vicente J. Francisco, as any attorney, is in know of the silent injustices committed by this
natural tendency to disturb and hinder the free duty bound to uphold its dignity and authority and to Court," and that "whatever mistakes, wrongs and
exercise of a serene and impartial judgment, defend its integrity, not only because it has conferred
injustices that were committed must never be office, but for the maintenance of its supreme justice, may subject the attorney to disciplinary
repeated." He ends his petition with a prayer that importance." action.122 (Emphases and underscoring supplied.)
"x x x a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court As Mr. Justice Field puts it: In a similar vein, In re: Vicente Sotto,123 cited in the
to receive the certificate of the undersigned attorney Vasquez Compliance, observed that:
and counsellor-at-law IN TRUST with reservation "x x x the obligation which attorneys impliedly
that at any time in the future and in the event we assume, if they do not by express declaration take [T]his Court, in In re Kelly, held the following:
regain our faith and confidence, we may retrieve our upon themselves, when they are admitted to the Bar,
title to assume the practice of the noblest is not merely to be obedient to the Constitution and The publication of a criticism of a party or of the
profession."121 laws, but to maintain at all times the respect due to court to a pending cause, respecting the same, has
courts of justice and judicial officers. This obligation always been considered as misbehavior, tending to
It is true that in Almacen the Court extensively is not discharged by merely observing the rules of obstruct the administration of justice, and subjects
discussed foreign jurisprudence on the principle that courteous demeanor in open court, but includes such persons to contempt proceedings. Parties have a
a lawyer, just like any citizen, has the right to abstaining out of court from all insulting language constitutional right to have their causes tried fairly in
criticize and comment upon actuations of public and offensive conduct toward judges personally for court, by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by
officers, including judicial authority. However, the their judicial acts." (Bradley, v. Fisher, 20 Law. 4d. publications or public clamor. Every citizen has a
real doctrine in Almacen is that such criticism of the 647, 652) profound personal interest in the enforcement of the
courts, whether done in court or outside of it, must fundamental right to have justice administered by the
conform to standards of fairness and propriety. This The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination courts, under the protection and forms of law, free
case engaged in an even more extensive discussion of to the courts is essential to the orderly administration from outside coercion or interference. x x x.
the legal authorities sustaining this view.1awphi1 To of justice. Hence, in the assertion of their clients'
quote from that decision: rights, lawyers even those gifted with superior Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or
intellect are enjoined to rein up their tempers. wrongness, soundness or unsoundness of the decision
But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism of the court in a pending case made in good faith may
that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the "The counsel in any case may or may not be an abler be tolerated; because if well founded it may enlighten
walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists or more learned lawyer than the judge, and it may tax the court and contribute to the correction of an error
between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse his patience and temper to submit to rulings which he if committed; but if it is not well taken and obviously
and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the regards as incorrect, but discipline and self-respect erroneous, it should, in no way, influence the court in
other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross are as necessary to the orderly administration of reversing or modifying its decision. x x x.
violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a justice as they are to the effectiveness of an army.
misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary The decisions of the judge must be obeyed, because xxxx
action. he is the tribunal appointed to decide, and the bar
should at all times be the foremost in rendering To hurl the false charge that this Court has been for
For, membership in the Bar imposes upon a person respectful submission." (In Re Scouten, 40 Atl. 481) the last years committing deliberately "so many
obligations and duties which are not mere flux and blunders and injustices," that is to say, that it has been
ferment. His investiture into the legal profession xxxx deciding in favor of one party knowing that the law
places upon his shoulders no burden more basic, and justice is on the part of the adverse party and not
more exacting and more imperative than that of In his relations with the courts, a lawyer may not on the one in whose favor the decision was rendered,
respectful behavior toward the courts. He vows divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one in many cases decided during the last years, would
solemnly to conduct himself "with all good fidelity x time and a mere citizen at another. Thus, statements tend necessarily to undermine the confidence of the
x x to the courts;" and the Rules of Court constantly made by an attorney in private conversations or people in the honesty and integrity of the members of
remind him "to observe and maintain the respect due communications or in the course of a political this Court, and consequently to lower or degrade the
to courts of justice and judicial officers." The first campaign, if couched in insulting language as to administration of justice by this Court. The Supreme
canon of legal ethics enjoins him "to maintain bring into scorn and disrepute the administration of Court of the Philippines is, under the Constitution,
towards the courts a respectful attitude, not for the the last bulwark to which the Filipino people may
sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial
repair to obtain relief for their grievances or also to consider it his duty to avail of such right. No manifestly baseless, and malicious statements in
protection of their rights when these are trampled law may abridge this right. Nor is he "professionally pleadings or in a letter addressed to the judge (Baja
upon, and if the people lose their confidence in the answerable to a scrutiny into the official conduct of vs. Macandog, 158 SCRA [1988], citing the
honesty and integrity of the members of this Court the judges, which would not expose him to legal resolution of 19 January 1988 in Phil. Public Schools
and believe that they cannot expect justice therefrom, animadversion as a citizen." (Case of Austin, 28 Am Teachers Association vs. Quisumbing, G.R. No.
they might be driven to take the law into their own Dec. 657, 665). 76180, and Ceniza vs. Sebastian, 130 SCRA 295
hands, and disorder and perhaps chaos might be the [1984]); or of disparaging, intemperate, and uncalled-
result. As a member of the bar and an officer of the xxxx for remarks (Sangalang vs. Intermediate Appellate
courts Atty. Vicente Sotto, like any other, is in duty Court, 177 SCRA 87 [1989]).
bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Nevertheless, such a right is not without limit. For, as
Court, to which he owes fidelity according to the oath Any criticism against a judge made in the guise of an
this Court warned in Almacen:
he has taken as such attorney, and not to promote administrative complaint which is clearly unfounded
distrust in the administration of justice. Respect to the and impelled by ulterior motive will not excuse the
courts guarantees the stability of other institutions, But it is a cardinal condition of all such criticism that
lawyer responsible therefor under his duty of fidelity
which without such guaranty would be resting on a it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls
to his client. x x x.126 (Emphases and underscoring
very shaky foundation.124 (Emphases and of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists
supplied.)
underscoring supplied.) between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse
and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the
other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross In Saberon v. Larong,127 where this Court found
That the doctrinal pronouncements in these early respondent lawyer guilty of simple misconduct for
violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a
cases are still good law can be easily gleaned even using intemperate language in his pleadings and
misconduct, that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary
from more recent jurisprudence. imposed a fine upon him, we had the occasion to
action.
state:
In Choa v. Chiongson,125 the Court administratively xxxx
disciplined a lawyer, through the imposition of a fine, The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates:
for making malicious and unfounded criticisms of a
judge in the guise of an administrative complaint and Elsewise stated, the right to criticize, which is
guaranteed by the freedom of speech and of CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with
held, thus:
expression in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional
must be exercised responsibly, for every right carries colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against
As an officer of the court and its indispensable opposing counsel.
with it a corresponding obligation. Freedom is not
partner in the sacred task of administering justice, freedom from responsibility, but freedom with
graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than responsibility. x x x. Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional
any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
show respect to its officers. This does not mean,
xxxx otherwise improper.
however, that a lawyer cannot criticize a judge. As we
stated in Tiongco vs. Hon. Aguilar:
Proscribed then are, inter alia, the use of unnecessary CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain
language which jeopardizes high esteem in courts, the respect due to the courts and to judicial
It does not, however, follow that just because a
creates or promotes distrust in judicial administration officers and should insist on similar conduct by
lawyer is an officer of the court, he cannot criticize
(Rheem, supra), or tends necessarily to undermine the others.
the courts. That is his right as a citizen, and it is even
his duty as an officer of the court to avail of such confidence of people in the integrity of the members
right. Thus, in In Re: Almacen (31 SCRA 562, 579- of this Court and to degrade the administration of Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from
580 [1970]), this Court explicitly declared: justice by this Court (In re: Sotto, 82 Phil. 595 scandalous, offensive or menacing language or
[1949]); or of offensive and abusive language (In re: behavior before the Courts.
Rafael Climaco, 55 SCRA 107 [1974]); or abrasive
Hence, as a citizen and as officer of the court, a and offensive language (Yangson vs. Salandanan, 68 To be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal system
lawyer is expected not only to exercise the right, but SCRA 42 [1975]; or of disrespectful, offensive, has tempted members of the bar to use strong
language in pursuit of their duty to advance the on judicial decisions and institutions pose. This Court for contumacious conduct and speech, coupled with
interests of their clients. held as much in Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan and undue intervention in favor of a party in a pending
Gonzales,131 where we indefinitely suspended a case, without observing proper procedure, even if
However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his lawyer from the practice of law for issuing to the purportedly done in their capacity as teachers.
case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does media statements grossly disrespectful towards the
not justify the use of offensive and abusive Court in relation to a pending case, to wit: A novel issue involved in the present controversy, for
language. Language abounds with countless it has not been passed upon in any previous case
possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, Respondent Gonzales is entitled to the constitutional before this Court, is the question of whether lawyers
convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but guarantee of free speech. No one seeks to deny him who are also law professors can invoke academic
not offensive. that right, least of all this Court. What respondent freedom as a defense in an administrative proceeding
seems unaware of is that freedom of speech and of for intemperate statements tending to pressure the
On many occasions, the Court has reminded expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not Court or influence the outcome of a case or degrade
members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive absolute and that freedom of expression needs on the courts.
personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with
honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless the requirements of equally important public interest. Applying by analogy the Courts past treatment of the
required by the justice of the cause with which he is One of these fundamental public interests is the "free speech" defense in other bar discipline cases,
charged. In keeping with the dignity of the legal maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning academic freedom cannot be successfully invoked by
profession, a lawyers language even in his pleadings of the administration of justice. There is no antinomy respondents in this case. The implicit ruling in the
must be dignified.128 between free expression and the integrity of the jurisprudence discussed above is that the
system of administering justice. For the protection constitutional right to freedom of expression of
and maintenance of freedom of expression itself can members of the Bar may be circumscribed by their
Verily, the accusatory and vilifying nature of certain
be secured only within the context of a functioning ethical duties as lawyers to give due respect to the
portions of the Statement exceeded the limits of fair
and orderly system of dispensing justice, within the courts and to uphold the publics faith in the legal
comment and cannot be deemed as protected free
context, in other words, of viable independent profession and the justice system. To our mind, the
speech. Even In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory
institutions for delivery of justice which are accepted reason that freedom of expression may be so
Relief Re: Constitutionality of Republic Act 4880,
by the general community. x x x.132 (Emphases delimited in the case of lawyers applies with greater
Gonzales v. Commission on Elections,129 relied upon
supplied.) force to the academic freedom of law professors.
by respondents in the Common Compliance, held
that:
For this reason, the Court cannot uphold the view of It would do well for the Court to remind respondents
some respondents133 that the Statement presents no that, in view of the broad definition in Cayetano v.
From the language of the specific constitutional
grave or imminent danger to a legitimate public Monsod,134 lawyers when they teach law are
provision, it would appear that the right is not
interest. considered engaged in the practice of law. Unlike
susceptible of any limitation. No law may be passed
abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. The professors in other disciplines and more than lawyers
realities of life in a complex society preclude The Show Cause Resolution does not interfere with who do not teach law, respondents are bound by their
however a literal interpretation. Freedom of respondents academic freedom. oath to uphold the ethical standards of the legal
expression is not an absolute. It would be too much to profession. Thus, their actions as law professors must
insist that at all times and under all circumstances it It is not contested that respondents herein are, by law be measured against the same canons of professional
should remain unfettered and unrestrained. There are and jurisprudence, guaranteed academic freedom and responsibility applicable to acts of members of the
other societal values that press for recognition. x x undisputably, they are free to determine what they Bar as the fact of their being law professors is
x.130 (Emphasis supplied.) will teach their students and how they will teach. We inextricably entwined with the fact that they are
must point out that there is nothing in the Show lawyers.
One such societal value that presses for recognition Cause Resolution that dictates upon respondents the
in the case at bar is the threat to judicial subject matter they can teach and the manner of their Even if the Court was willing to accept respondents
independence and the orderly administration of instruction. Moreover, it is not inconsistent with the proposition in the Common Compliance that their
justice that immoderate, reckless and unfair attacks principle of academic freedom for this Court to issuance of the Statement was in keeping with their
subject lawyers who teach law to disciplinary action duty to "participate in the development of the legal
system by initiating or supporting efforts in law subsequently submitted to the Court for "proper Notwithstanding their professed overriding interest in
reform and in the improvement of the administration disposition." said ethics case, it is not proper procedure for
of justice" under Canon 4 of the Code of Professional respondents to bring up their plagiarism arguments
Responsibility, we cannot agree that they have That humiliating the Court into reconsidering the here especially when it has no bearing on their own
fulfilled that same duty in keeping with the demands Vinuya Decision in favor of the Malaya Lolas was administrative case.
of Canons 1, 11 and 13 to give due respect to legal one of the objectives of the Statement could be seen
processes and the courts, and to avoid conduct that in the following paragraphs from the same: Still on motive, it is also proposed that the choice of
tends to influence the courts. Members of the Bar language in the Statement was intended for effective
cannot be selective regarding which canons to abide speech; that speech must be "forceful enough to make
And in light of the significance of this decision to the
by given particular situations. With more reason that the intended recipients listen."136 One wonders what
quest for justice not only of Filipino women, but of
law professors are not allowed this indulgence, since sort of effect respondents were hoping for in branding
women elsewhere in the world who have suffered the
they are expected to provide their students exemplars this Court as, among others, callous, dishonest and
horrors of sexual abuse and exploitation in times of
of the Code of Professional Responsibility as a whole lacking in concern for the basic values of decency
war, the Court cannot coldly deny relief and justice to
and not just their preferred portions thereof. and respect. The Court fails to see how it can ennoble
the petitioners on the basis of pilfered and
misinterpreted texts. the profession if we allow respondents to send a
The Courts rulings on the submissions regarding the signal to their students that the only way to
charge of violation of Canons 1, 11 and 13. effectively plead their cases and persuade others to
xxxx
their point of view is to be offensive.
Having disposed of respondents main arguments of (3) The same breach and consequent disposition of
freedom of expression and academic freedom, the This brings to our mind the letters of Dr. Ellis and
the Vinuya case does violence to the primordial
Court considers here the other averments in their Prof. Tams which were deliberately quoted in full in
function of the Supreme Court as the ultimate
submissions. the narration of background facts to illustrate the
dispenser of justice to all those who have been left
sharp contrast between the civil tenor of these letters
without legal or equitable recourse, such as the
With respect to good faith, respondents allegations and the antagonistic irreverence of the Statement. In
petitioners therein.135 (Emphases and underscoring
presented two main ideas: (a) the validity of their truth, these foreign authors are the ones who would
supplied.)
position regarding the plagiarism charge against expectedly be affected by any perception of misuse of
Justice Del Castillo, and (b) their pure motive to spur their works. Notwithstanding that they are beyond the
Whether or not respondents views regarding the disciplinary reach of this Court, they still obviously
this Court to take the correct action on said issue. plagiarism issue in the Vinuya case had valid basis took pains to convey their objections in a deferential
was wholly immaterial to their liability for and scholarly manner. It is unfathomable to the Court
The Court has already clarified that it is not the contumacious speech and conduct. These are two why respondents could not do the same. These
expression of respondents staunch belief that Justice separate matters to be properly threshed out in foreign authors letters underscore the universality of
Del Castillo has committed a misconduct that the separate proceedings. The Court considers it highly the tenet that legal professionals must deal with each
majority of this Court has found so unbecoming in inappropriate, if not tantamount to dissembling, the other in good faith and due respect. The mark of the
the Show Cause Resolution. No matter how firm a discussion devoted in one of the compliances arguing true intellectual is one who can express his opinions
lawyers conviction in the righteousness of his cause the guilt of Justice Del Castillo. In the Common logically and soberly without resort to exaggerated
there is simply no excuse for denigrating the courts Compliance, respondents even go so far as to attach rhetoric and unproductive recriminations.
and engaging in public behavior that tends to put the documentary evidence to support the plagiarism
courts and the legal profession into disrepute. This charges against Justice Del Castillo in the present
doctrine, which we have repeatedly upheld in such As for the claim that the respondents noble intention
controversy. The ethics case of Justice Del Castillo
cases as Salcedo, In re Almacen and Saberong, is to spur the Court to take "constructive action" on
(A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC), with the filing of a motion
should be applied in this case with more reason, as the plagiarism issue, the Court has some doubts as to
for reconsideration, was still pending at the time of
the respondents, not parties to the Vinuya case, its veracity. For if the Statement was primarily meant
the filing of respondents submissions in this
denounced the Court and urged it to change its for this Courts consideration, why was the same
administrative case. As respondents themselves
decision therein, in a public statement using published and reported in the media first before it
admit, they are neither parties nor counsels in the
contumacious language, which with temerity they was submitted to this Court? It is more plausible that
ethics case against Justice Del Castillo.
the Statement was prepared for consumption by the
general public and designed to capture media whose personal or other interests in making the the case of said attorney with the justice it
attention as part of the effort to generate interest in criticism are obvious, the Court may perhaps tolerate deserves.139 (Emphases supplied.)
the most controversial ground in the Supplemental or ignore them. However, when law professors are
Motion for Reconsideration filed in the Vinuya case the ones who appear to have lost sight of the Thus, the 35 respondents named in the Common
by Atty. Roque, who is respondents colleague on the boundaries of fair commentary and worse, would Compliance should, notwithstanding their claim of
UP Law faculty. justify the same as an exercise of civil liberties, this good faith, be reminded of their lawyerly duty, under
Court cannot remain silent for such silence would Canons 1, 11 and 13, to give due respect to the courts
In this regard, the Court finds that there was indeed a have a grave implication on legal education in our and to refrain from intemperate and offensive
lack of observance of fidelity and due respect to the country. language tending to influence the Court on pending
Court, particularly when respondents knew fully well matters or to denigrate the courts and the
that the matter of plagiarism in the Vinuya decision With respect to the 35 respondents named in the administration of justice.
and the merits of the Vinuya decision itself, at the Common Compliance, considering that this appears
time of the Statements issuance, were still both sub to be the first time these respondents have been With respect to Prof. Vasquez, the Court favorably
judice or pending final disposition of the Court. involved in disciplinary proceedings of this sort, the notes the differences in his Compliance compared to
These facts have been widely publicized. On this Court is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt his colleagues. In our view, he was the only one
point, respondents allege that at the time the that they were for the most part well-intentioned in among the respondents who showed true candor and
Statement was first drafted on July 27, 2010, they did the issuance of the Statement. However, it is sincere deference to the Court. He was able to give a
not know of the constitution of the Ethics Committee established in jurisprudence that where the excessive straightforward account of how he came to sign the
and they had issued the Statement under the belief and contumacious language used is plain and Statement. He was candid enough to state that his
that this Court intended to take no action on the undeniable, then good intent can only be mitigating. agreement to the Statement was in principle and that
ethics charge against Justice Del Castillo. Still, there As this Court expounded in Salcedo: the reason plagiarism was a "fair topic of discussion"
was a significant lapse of time from the drafting and among the UP Law faculty prior to the promulgation
printing of the Statement on July 27, 2010 and its In his defense, Attorney Vicente J. Francisco states of the October 12, 2010 Decision in A.M. No. 10-7-
publication and submission to this Court in early that it was not his intention to offend the court or to 17-SC was the uncertainty brought about by a
August when the Ethics Committee had already been be recreant to the respect thereto but, unfortunately, division of opinion on whether or not willful or
convened. If it is true that the respondents outrage there are his phrases which need no further comment. deliberate intent was an element of plagiarism. He
was fueled by their perception of indifference on the Furthermore, it is a well settled rule in all places was likewise willing to acknowledge that he may
part of the Court then, when it became known that the where the same conditions and practice as those in have been remiss in failing to assess the effect of the
Court did intend to take action, there was nothing to this jurisdiction obtain, that want of intention is no language of the Statement and could have used more
prevent respondents from recalibrating the Statement excuse from liability (13 C. J., 45). Neither is the fact care. He did all this without having to retract his
to take this supervening event into account in the that the phrases employed are justified by the facts a position on the plagiarism issue, without demands for
interest of fairness. valid defense: undeserved reliefs (as will be discussed below) and
without baseless insinuations of deprivation of due
Speaking of the publicity this case has generated, we "Where the matter is abusive or insulting, evidence process or of prejudgment. This is all that this Court
likewise find no merit in the respondents reliance on that the language used was justified by the facts is not expected from respondents, not for them to sacrifice
various news reports and commentaries in the print admissible as a defense. Respect for the judicial their principles but only that they recognize that they
media and the internet as proof that they are being office should always be observed and enforced." (In themselves may have committed some ethical lapse
unfairly "singled out." On the contrary, these same re Stewart, 118 La., 827; 43 S., 455.) Said lack or in this affair. We commend Prof. Vaquez for showing
annexes to the Common Compliance show that it is want of intention constitutes at most an extenuation that at least one of the respondents can grasp the true
not enough for one to criticize the Court to warrant of liability in this case, taking into consideration import of the Show Cause Resolution involving
the institution of disciplinary137 or contempt138 action. Attorney Vicente J. Francisco's state of mind, them. For these reasons, the Court finds Prof.
This Court takes into account the nature of the according to him when he prepared said motion. This Vasquezs Compliance satisfactory.
criticism and weighs the possible repercussions of the court is disposed to make such concession. However,
same on the Judiciary. When the criticism comes in order to avoid a recurrence thereof and to prevent As for Prof. Lynch, in view of his Manifestation that
from persons outside the profession who may not others, by following the bad example, from taking the he is a member of the Bar of the State of Minnesota
have a full grasp of legal issues or from individuals same course, this court considers it imperative to treat and, therefore, not under the disciplinary authority of
this Court, he should be excused from these point. The value of the Statement as a UP Law his submission to the Court of Restoring Integrity II
proceedings. However, he should be reminded that Faculty Statement lies precisely in the identities of on August 11, 2010. There was nothing to prevent the
while he is engaged as a professor in a Philippine law the persons who have signed it, since the Statements dean from submitting Restoring Integrity I to this
school he should strive to be a model of responsible persuasive authority mainly depends on the Court even with its blanks and unsigned portions.
and professional conduct to his students even without reputation and stature of the persons who have Dean Leonen cannot claim fears of vandalism with
the threat of sanction from this Court. For even if one endorsed the same. Indeed, it is apparent from respect to court submissions for court employees are
is not bound by the Code of Professional respondents explanations that their own belief in the accountable for the care of documents and records
Responsibility for members of the Philippine Bar, "importance" of their positions as UP law professors that may come into their custody. Yet, Dean Leonen
civility and respect among legal professionals of any prompted them to publicly speak out on the matter of deliberately chose to submit to this Court the
nationality should be aspired for under universal the plagiarism issue in the Vinuya case. facsimile that did not contain the actual signatures
standards of decency and fairness. and his silence on the reason therefor is in itself a
Further, in our assessment, the true cause of Dean display of lack of candor.
The Courts ruling on Dean Leonens Compliance Leonens predicament is the fact that he did not from
regarding the charge of violation of Canon 10. the beginning submit the signed copy, Restoring Still, a careful reading of Dean Leonens explanations
Integrity I, to this Court on August 11, 2010 and, yield the answer. In the course of his explanation of
To recall, the Show Cause Resolution directed Dean instead, submitted Restoring Integrity II with its his willingness to accept his administrative officers
Leonen to show cause why he should not be retyped or "reformatted" signature pages. It would claim that Justice Mendoza agreed to be indicated as
disciplinary dealt with for violation of Canon 10, turn out, according to Dean Leonens account, that a signatory, Dean Leonen admits in a footnote that
Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03 and for submitting a there were errors in the retyping of the signature other professors had likewise only authorized him to
"dummy" that was not a true and faithful pages due to lapses of his unnamed staff. First, an indicate them as signatories and had not in fact
reproduction of the signed Statement. unnamed administrative officer in the deans office signed the Statement. Thus, at around the time
gave the dean inaccurate information that led him to Restoring Integrity II was printed, posted and
allow the inclusion of Justice Mendoza as among the submitted to this Court, at least one purported
In his Compliance, Dean Leonen essentially denies
signatories of Restoring Integrity II. Second, an signatory thereto had not actually signed the same.
that Restoring Integrity II was not a true and
unnamed staff also failed to type the name of Atty. Contrary to Dean Leonens proposition, that is
faithful reproduction of the actual signed
Armovit when encoding the signature pages of precisely tantamount to making it appear to this
copy, Restoring Integrity I, because looking at the
Restoring Integrity II when in fact he had signed Court that a person or persons participated in an act
text or the body, there were no differences between
Restoring Integrity I. when such person or persons did not.
the two. He attempts to downplay the discrepancies
in the signature pages of the two versions of the
Statement (i.e., Restoring Integrity I and Restoring The Court can understand why for purposes of We are surprised that someone like Dean Leonen,
Integrity II) by claiming that it is but expected in posting on a bulletin board or a website a signed with his reputation for perfection and stringent
"live" public manifestos with dynamic and evolving document may have to be reformatted and signatures standards of intellectual honesty, could proffer the
pages as more and more signatories add their may be indicated by the notation (SGD). This is not explanation that there was no misrepresentation when
imprimatur thereto. He likewise stresses that he is not unusual. We are willing to accept that the he allowed at least one person to be indicated as
administratively liable because he did not reformatting of documents meant for posting to having actually signed the Statement when all he had
misrepresent the members of the UP Law faculty who eliminate blanks is necessitated by vandalism was a verbal communication of an intent to sign. In
"had agreed with the Restoring Integrity Statement concerns. the case of Justice Mendoza, what he had was only
proper and/or who had expressed their desire to be hearsay information that the former intended to sign
signatories thereto."140 However, what is unusual is the submission to a the Statement. If Dean Leonen was truly determined
court, especially this Court, of a signed document for to observe candor and truthfulness in his dealings
To begin with, the Court cannot subscribe to Dean the Courts consideration that did not contain the with the Court, we see no reason why he could not
actual signatures of its authors. In most cases, it is have waited until all the professors who indicated
Leonens implied view that the signatures in the
the original signed document that is transmitted to the their desire to sign the Statement had in fact signed
Statement are not as significant as its contents. Live
Court or at the very least a photocopy of the actual before transmitting the Statement to the Court as a
public manifesto or not, the Statement was formally
signed document. Dean Leonen has not offered any duly signed document. If it was truly impossible to
submitted to this Court at a specific point in time and
explanation why he deviated from this practice with secure some signatures, such as that of Justice
it should reflect accurately its signatories at that
Mendoza who had to leave for abroad, then Dean Compliance. In Prof. Juan-Bautistas Compliance, From the foregoing provision, it cannot be denied
Leonen should have just resigned himself to the she similarly expressed the sentiment that "[i]f the that a formal investigation, through a referral to the
signatures that he was able to secure. Restoring Integrity Statement can be considered specified officers, is merely discretionary, not
indirect contempt, under Section 3 of Rule 71 of the mandatory on the Court. Furthermore, it is only if
We cannot imagine what urgent concern there was Rules of Court, such may be punished only after the Court deems such an investigation necessary that
that he could not wait for actual signatures before charge and hearing."141 It is this group of respondents the procedure in Sections 6 to 11 of Rule 139-A will
submission of the Statement to this Court. As premise that these reliefs are necessary for them to be be followed.
respondents all asserted, they were neither parties to accorded full due process.
nor counsels in the Vinuya case and the ethics case As respondents are fully aware, in general,
against Justice Del Castillo. The Statement was The Court finds this contention unmeritorious. administrative proceedings do not require a trial type
neither a pleading with a deadline nor a required hearing. We have held that:
submission to the Court; rather, it was a voluntary Firstly, it would appear that the confusion as to the
submission that Dean Leonen could do at any time. necessity of a hearing in this case springs largely The essence of due process is simply an opportunity
from its characterization as a special civil action for to be heard or, as applied to administrative
In sum, the Court likewise finds Dean Leonens indirect contempt in the Dissenting Opinion of proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or
Compliance unsatisfactory. However, the Court is Justice Sereno (to the October 19, 2010 Show Cause an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action
willing to ascribe these isolated lapses in judgment of Resolution) and her reliance therein on the majoritys or ruling complained of. What the law prohibits
Dean Leonen to his misplaced zeal in pursuit of his purported failure to follow the procedure in Rule 71 is absolute absence of the opportunity to be heard,
objectives. In due consideration of Dean Leonens of the Rules of Court as her main ground for hence, a party cannot feign denial of due process
professed good intentions, the Court deems it opposition to the Show Cause Resolution. where he had been afforded the opportunity to
sufficient to admonish Dean Leonen for failing to present his side. A formal or trial type hearing is not
observe full candor and honesty in his dealings with However, once and for all, it should be clarified that at all times and in all instances essential to due
the Court as required under Canon 10. this is not an indirect contempt proceeding and Rule process, the requirements of which are satisfied
71 (which requires a hearing) has no application to where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable
Respondents requests for a hearing, for this case. As explicitly ordered in the Show Cause opportunity to explain their side of the
production/presentation of evidence bearing on the Resolution this case was docketed as an controversy.142 (Emphases supplied.)
plagiarism and misrepresentation issues in G.R. No. administrative matter.
162230 and A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, and for access to In relation to bar discipline cases, we have had the
the records of A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC are The rule that is relevant to this controversy is Rule occasion to rule in Pena v. Aparicio143 that:
unmeritorious. 139-B, Section 13, on disciplinary proceedings
initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court, to wit: Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui
In the Common Compliance, respondents named generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they
therein asked for alternative reliefs should the Court SEC. 13. Supreme Court Investigators.In do not involve a trial of an action or a suit, but is
find their Compliance unsatisfactory, that is, that the proceedings initiated motu proprio by the Supreme rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct
Show Cause Resolution be set for hearing and for Court or in other proceedings when the interest of of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict
that purpose, they be allowed to require the justice so requires, the Supreme Court may refer the punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution.
production or presentation of witnesses and evidence case for investigation to the Solicitor General or to Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a
bearing on the plagiarism and misrepresentation any officer of the Supreme Court or judge of a lower prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the
issues in the Vinuya case (G.R. No. 162230) and the court, in which case the investigation shall proceed in Court motu proprio. Public interest is its primary
plagiarism case against Justice Del Castillo (A.M. the same manner provided in sections 6 to 11 hereof, objective, and the real question for determination is
No. 10-7-17-SC) and to have access to the records of, save that the review of the report of investigation whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be
and evidence that were presented or may be shall be conducted directly by the Supreme Court. allowed the privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise
presented in the ethics case against Justice Del (Emphasis supplied.) of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls
Castillo. The prayer for a hearing and for access to upon a member of the Bar to account for his
the records of A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC was actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in
substantially echoed in Dean Leonens separate view of preserving the purity of the legal profession
and the proper and honest administration of justice by These cases clearly show that the absence of any Statement with language that the Court deems
purging the profession of members who by their formal charge against and/or formal investigation of objectionable during the pendency of the Vinuya case
misconduct have proved themselves no longer an errant lawyer do not preclude the Court from and the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo,
worthy to be entrusted with the duties and immediately exercising its disciplining authority, as respondents need to go no further than the four
responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. long as the errant lawyer or judge has been given the corners of the Statement itself, its various versions,
In such posture, there can thus be no occasion to opportunity to be heard. As we stated earlier, Atty. news reports/columns (many of which respondents
speak of a complainant or a prosecutor.144 (Emphases Buffe has been afforded the opportunity to be heard themselves supplied to this Court in their Common
supplied.) on the present matter through her letter-query and Compliance) and internet sources that are already of
Manifestation filed before this Court.146 (Emphases public knowledge.
In Query of Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, Former supplied.)
Clerk of Court Br. 81, Romblon On the Considering that what respondents are chiefly
Prohibition from Engaging in the Private Practice of Under the rules and jurisprudence, respondents required to explain are the language of the Statement
Law,145 we further observed that: clearly had no right to a hearing and their reservation and the circumstances surrounding the drafting,
of a right they do not have has no effect on these printing, signing, dissemination, etc., of its various
[I]n several cases, the Court has disciplined lawyers proceedings. Neither have they shown in their versions, the Court does not see how any witness or
without further inquiry or resort to any formal pleadings any justification for this Court to call for a evidence in the ethics case of Justice Del Castillo
investigation where the facts on record sufficiently hearing in this instance. They have not specifically could possibly shed light on these facts. To be sure,
provided the basis for the determination of their stated what relevant evidence, documentary or these facts are within the knowledge of respondents
administrative liability. testimonial, they intend to present in their defense and if there is any evidence on these matters the same
that will necessitate a formal hearing. would be in their possession.
In Prudential Bank v. Castro, the Court disbarred a
lawyer without need of any further investigation after Instead, it would appear that they intend to present We find it significant that in Dean Leonens
considering his actions based on records showing his records, evidence, and witnesses bearing on the Compliance he narrated how as early as September
unethical misconduct; the misconduct not only cast plagiarism and misrepresentation issues in 2010, i.e., before the Decision of this Court in the
dishonor on the image of both the Bench and the Bar, the Vinuya case and in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC on the ethics case of Justice Del Castillo on October 12,
but was also inimical to public interest and welfare. assumption that the findings of this Court which were 2010 and before the October 19, 2010 Show Cause
In this regard, the Court took judicial notice of the bases of the Show Cause Resolution were made Resolution, retired Supreme Court Justice Vicente V.
several cases handled by the errant lawyer and his in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, or were related to the Mendoza, after being shown a copy of the Statement
cohorts that revealed their modus operandi in conclusions of the Court in the Decision in that case. upon his return from abroad, predicted that the Court
circumventing the payment of the proper judicial fees This is the primary reason for their request for access would take some form of action on the Statement. By
for the astronomical sums they claimed in their cases. to the records and evidence presented in A.M. No. simply reading a hard copy of the Statement, a
The Court held that those cases sufficiently provided 10-7-17-SC. reasonable person, even one who "fundamentally
the basis for the determination of respondents' agreed" with the Statements principles, could foresee
administrative liability, without need for further This assumption on the part of respondents is the possibility of court action on the same on an
inquiry into the matter under the principle of res ipsa erroneous. To illustrate, the only incident in A.M. No. implicit recognition that the Statement, as worded, is
loquitur. 10-7-17-SC that is relevant to the case at bar is the not a matter this Court should simply let pass. This
fact that the submission of the actual signed copy of belies respondents claim that it is necessary for them
the Statement (or Restoring Integrity I, as Dean to refer to any record or evidence in A.M. No. 10-7-
Also on the basis of this principle, we ruled in
Leonen referred to it) happened there. Apart from that 17-SC in order to divine the bases for the Show
Richards v. Asoy, that no evidentiary hearing is
fact, it bears repeating that the proceedings in A.M. Cause Resolution.
required before the respondent may be disciplined for
professional misconduct already established by the No. 10-7-17-SC, the ethics case against Justice Del
facts on record. Castillo, is a separate and independent matter from If respondents have chosen not to include certain
this case. pieces of evidence in their respective compliances or
chosen not to make a full defense at this time,
xxxx
To find the bases of the statements of the Court in the because they were counting on being granted a
Show Cause Resolution that the respondents issued a hearing, that is respondents own look-out. Indeed,
law professors of their stature are supposed to be WHEREFORE, this administrative matter is decided to denigrate the Court and the administration
aware of the above jurisprudential doctrines as follows: of justice and warned that the same or
regarding the non-necessity of a hearing in similar act in the future shall be dealt with
disciplinary cases. They should bear the consequence (1) With respect to Prof. Vasquez, after more severely.
of the risk they have taken. favorably noting his submission, the Court
finds his Compliance to be satisfactory. (3) The separate Compliance of Dean
Thus, respondents requests for a hearing and for Marvic M.V.F. Leonen regarding the charge
access to the records of, and evidence presented in, (2) The Common Compliance of 35 of violation of Canon 10 is found
A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC should be denied for lack of respondents, namely, Attys. Marvic M.V.F. UNSATISFACTORY. He is further
merit. Leonen, Froilan M. Bacungan, Pacifico A. ADMONISHED to be more mindful of his
Agabin, Merlin M. Magallona, Salvador T. duty, as a member of the Bar, an officer of
A final word Carlota, Carmelo V. Sison, Patricia R.P. the Court, and a Dean and professor of law,
Salvador Daway, Dante B. Gatmaytan, to observe full candor and honesty in his
Theodore O. Te, Florin T. Hilbay, Jay L. dealings with the Court and warned that the
In a democracy, members of the legal community are
Batongbacal, Evelyn (Leo) D. Battad, Gwen same or similar act in the future shall be
hardly expected to have monolithic views on any
G. De Vera, Solomon F. Lumba, Rommel J. dealt with more severely.
subject, be it a legal, political or social issue. Even as
lawyers passionately and vigorously propound their Casis, Jose Gerardo A. Alampay, Miguel R.
points of view they are bound by certain rules of Armovit, Arthur P. Autea, Rosa Maria J. (4) Prof. Lynch, who is not a member of the
conduct for the legal profession. This Court is Bautista, Mark R. Bocobo, Dan P. Calica, Philippine bar, is excused from these
certainly not claiming that it should be shielded from Tristan A. Catindig, Sandra Marie O. proceedings. However, he is reminded that
criticism. All the Court demands is the same respect Coronel, Rosario O. Gallo, Concepcion L. while he is engaged as a professor in a
and courtesy that one lawyer owes to another under Jardeleza, Antonio G.M. La Via, Carina C. Philippine law school he should strive to be
established ethical standards. All lawyers, whether Laforteza, Jose C. Laureta, Rodolfo Noel S. a model of responsible and professional
they are judges, court employees, professors or Quimbo, Antonio M. Santos, Gmeleen Faye conduct to his students even without the
private practitioners, are officers of the Court and B. Tomboc, Nicholas Felix L. Ty, Evalyn G. threat of sanction from this Court.
have voluntarily taken an oath, as an indispensable Ursua, Susan D. Villanueva and Dina D.
qualification for admission to the Bar, to conduct Lucenario, is found UNSATISFACTORY. (5) Finally, respondents requests for a
themselves with good fidelity towards the courts. These 35 respondent law professors are hearing and for access to the records of A.M.
There is no exemption from this sworn duty for law reminded of their lawyerly duty, under No. 10-7-17-SC are denied for lack of merit.
professors, regardless of their status in the academic Canons 1, 11 and 13 of the Code of
community or the law school to which they belong. Professional Responsibility, to give due SO ORDERED.
respect to the Court and to refrain from
intemperate and offensive language tending
to influence the Court on pending matters or