Re: Letter of UP Faculty petitioners as well as the lack of concern of the SC members for the

Leonardo-de Castro | March 8, 2011 most basic values of decency and respect
o the criticism crossed the line to become harmful attacks
FACTS o it threatened the independence of the judiciary
● July 19, 2010: Atty. Harry Roque and Atty. Romel Bagares, counsel for the o the court directed the 27 respondents to show cause within 10 days why
Malaya Lolas, filed a Supplemental MR in Vinuya et. al. v. Executive they should not be disciplined as members of the bar
Secretary, positing their charge of plagiarism as a ground for reconsidering
the Vinuya decision written by Justice del Castillo Common compliance of 35 respondents (excluding Prof. Owen Lynch and
o They also claimed that there was also twisting of the true intents of the Prof. Raul Vasquez)
plagiarized sources ● they stressed that the statement was “in the discharge of the solemn duties
● On the same day, an article about the plagiarism by the SC was published in and trust reposed upon them as teachers in the profession of law” and as
Newsbreak and GMA News webite members of the Bar to speak out on a matter of public concern and one that
● July 22: In Atty. Roque’s column in Manila Standard today, he also wrote is of vital interest to them. They were acting with the purest of intentions.
about the plagiarism and twisting They also noted that the Court’s Oct. resolution was a prejudgment that
o An author of one of the plagiarized works (Prof. Criddle) also commented respondents were in contempt. They emphasized the ff points:
on the columns that there were indeed parts of their articles that were a. INTENTION: to defend SC’s integrity and credibility and to ensure
copied and were made to show an opposite assertion confidence in legal system. They were calling for the SC to provide
● On the same day, Justice del Castillo wrote a reply to his colleagues in the guidance to the Bench and Bar on the quality of legal research writing.
court about the charges of plagiarism Hence it was in keeping with lawyers’ duty to participate in the
● July 23: Dr. Ellis, the author of another plagiarized work, wrote the SC about development of the legal system (Canon 4 of Code of Prof. Resp.). They
the unauthorized use of his law review article. He found out about it through were also guarding the impact on the academe. They thought that the
the Media Legal Defence Initiative where he was a trustee. He also noted that SC would not act on the allegations of plagiarism because in an article in
the arguments he made were employed for cross purposes the Inquirer, Court Admin. Midas Marquez said that CJ Corona would not
● Aug. 2: the Ethics Committee of the SC required Attys. Roque and Bagares order inquiry on the matter
to comment on J. Del Castillo’s letter b. Respondents felt they were being singled out because there were also
● Aug. 9: the statement entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the various published reports and opinions about the issue of plagiarism
Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations (Newsbreak, Inquirer, Ramon Tulfo, CJ Panganiban, Sen. Pangilinan,
of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the SC” was posted in the Newsbreak Dean of ALS and PLM, etc.)
website and Atty. Roque’s blog and was reported in various news websites. c. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: the constitution protects their exercise of
The next day it was posted in UP Law’s bulletin board and website. free speech
● Aug. 11: Dean Leonen submitted a copy of the Statement to CJ Corona. This d. ACADEMIC FREEDOM: remaining silent on the plagiarism issue would
copy was not signed but merely reflected the names of certain faculty compromise their integrity and credibility as teachers
members with the letters (SGD.)
o The ethics committee required Dean Leonen to submit a signed copy of Separate Compliance of Dean Leonen regarding the charge in relation to his
the Statement. The copy he finally submitted showed the full roster of the submission of a “dummy” of the Statement
UP Law Faculty, 81 Faculty members in all but only 37 signed beside ● Deon Leonen clarified that a draft was circulated among the faculty embers
their names. so that those who wished to may sign.
o In the first copy, Justice VV Mendoza was marked “SGD” but in the ● It was their established practice in relation to significant public issuances that
second copy, he had no signature the signed pages be reformatted so that only the names of those who signed
o In the first copy, Atty. Armovit was not marked “SGD” but in the second the first printed draft would appear, together with the corresponding “SGD”.
copy he had a signature This practice was for aesthetics as well as to secure the integrity of the
● Oct. 19: the SC en banc issued a resolution saying the ff: documents because if there were blanks, it would be prone to vandalisms
o the statement was an institutional attack on the SC. The first paragraph ● The inclusion of Justice VV Mendoza was due to a miscommunication
referred to the decision in Vinuya as a “reprehensible act of dishonesty between the justice and Dean Leonen’s staff. Truth is Justice Mendoza
and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land” initially wanted to sign but eventually declined when the issue already
o the insult to the SC members was aggravated by imputations of became controversial
deliberately delaying the resolution of the case, its dismissal on the basis
of polluted sources, and the SC’s alleged indifference to the cause of On Prof. Owen Lynch: he is not a member of the Philippine bar and was only a
visiting professor. He signed the Statement because he believed that for a
criticism to be effective, it must be forceful enough to make the intended recipients ● Because it is their first time to be involved in disciplinary proceeding
listen and they were well-intentioned in the issuance of the Statement, they
will only be reminded of the lawyerly duty to give respect to the courts
ISSUES/DISCUSSIONS and to refrain from intemperate and offensive language tending to
influence the Courton pending matters or to denigrate the courts and
1. WoN respondents were denied freedom of expression 🡪 NO the administration of justice.
● The SC’s resolution was not about the respondents criticizing the SC; it was
about the manner of criticism that was not fair or constructive and the 4. WoN Dean Leonen should be disciplined under the Code 🡪 YES
contumacious language by which respondents, who are not parties nor ● It was okay that they have a practice of reformatting a statement before
counsels in the Vinuya case, expressed their opinion in favor of the posting in a bulletin board but when it comes to submissions of the court, the
petitioners while the case was pending. practice is to submit the original signed copy. There were no urgent concerns
● Freedom of expression is not absolute. that could have justified why he did not submit the original signed copy.
● Criticism should not be harmful and irresponsible attacks. The SC should be ● It was surprising that Dean Leonen agreed that Justice Mendoza appear to
permitted to proceed to the disposition of it business free from outside have signed the statement when in fact he has not. This is contrary to Dean
interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the Leonen;s reputation for perfection and stringent standards.
administration of justice. Their conduct was contrary to their obligation as law ● Dean Leonen’s compliance was unsatisfactory but the court is willing to
professors and officers of the Court to be the first to uphold the dignity and ascribe these isolated lapses in judgment of Dean Leonen to his
authority of the Court to which they owe fidelity according to their oath misplaced zeal in pursuit of his objectives/ in due consideration of Dean
● They were in contempt of the dignity of the court and were disrespectful for Leonen’s professed good intentions, the Court deems it sufficient to
resorting to the press and stating in a threatening manner with the intention of admonish Dean Leonen for failing to observe full candor and honesty in
predisposing the mind of the reader against the court, thus creating an his dealings with the Court
atmosphere of prejudices against it
● Criticism should be: bona fide and shall not spill over the walls of decency 5. On the respondents’ requests for a hearing, for
and propriety production/presentation of evidence
● A formal investigation is merely discretionary, not mandatory on the Court
2. WoN respondents were denied academic freedom 🡪 NO because disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis and do not
● The Court treats the academic freedom defense similar to how it treats the need the same trials as criminal or civil cases.
free speech defense
● Lawyers when they teach law are considered engaged in the practice of law 6. On Prof. Lynch: he was excused because he was not a member of the
(Cayetano v. Monsod). Hence they are bound by their oath to uphold the Philippine Bar but he was reminded to be responsible why engaged as a
ethical standards of the lagal profession. professor of UP Law.
● Even though they were just fulfilling their duty to develop the legal system
under Canon 4 of the Code, they still violated Canons 1, 11 and 13 to give
due respect to legal processes and the courts and to avoid conduct that tends
to influence the courts.

3. WoN respondents should be disciplined under the Code 🡪 YES

● Humiliating the Court into reconsidering the Vinuya decision in favor of the
petitioners was one of the objectives of the statement
● The Court fails to see how it can ennoble the profession if they allow
respondents to send a signal to their students that the oly way to effectively
plead their cases and persuade others to their point of view is to be offensive
● The foreign authors of the plagiarized works are the ones who would
expectedly be affected by the misuse of their works but they conveyed their
objections in a deferential and scholarly manner. It is unfathomable for the
SC why the respondents cannot do the same.
● When the issue was widely publicized, the VInuya decision was still pedning
reconsideration. The SC did intend to take action, hence the respondents did
not have reason to think that the SC was indifferent to their plea.