A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC [Vol.
642 | FEBRUARY 8, 2011]
Lopez v. Roxas
I. Recit-ready summary
In the case of plagiarism against Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, a motion for
reconsideration was filed by the petitioners, Vinuya et al., after the Court dismissed
the charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials and gross neglect against Del
Castillo. In his decision in Vinuya v. Romulo, around 53% of the discussion on
international law seemed to be plagiarized from a number of foreign authors.
However, the court argued that it is normal for judges to lift passages from various
legal writings and precedents in resolving a particular matter. The Court also argues
that there is no malicious intent in the alleged plagiarism, which is an important
element according to Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of plagiarism. This is seen
in how the legal researcher admitted to have accidentally deleted the attributions while
she was finalizing the draft. In addition, according to the Court, the foreign authors
from whom Justice Mariano Del Castillo allegedly plagiarized from were not the
original authors of the passages in question, and these originators were actually
attributed to. Thus, given that there was an attempt to provide attributions, the
malicious intent component of the definition of “plagiarism” is not satisfied. The
Court, then, denied the motion for reconsideration due to the lack of merit.
II. Facts of the case
The Court dismissed the charges against Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo of
plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect for the decision he wrote in
G.R. No. 162230 Vinuya v. Romulo.. Petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya, et al., all
members of Malaya Lolas Organization filed for reconsideration, claiming that the
Court’s decision “approved of the commission of plagiarism in the Philippines”.
Around 53% of Vinuya Decision’s discussion on international law seems to be
plagiarized from various foreign authors.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, plagiarism is the “deliberate and knowing
presentation of another person’s original ideas or creative expressions as one’s own”,
which implies malicious intent. The Court differentiates plagiarism in the academe
from judicial plagiarism, as intent is irrelevant in the academe, whereas it is important
in judicial plagiarism. The Court cited Bast and Samuels in saying that the “judicial
system is based on the doctrine of stare decisis, which encourages courts to cite
historical legal data, precedents and related in their decisions. The judge is not
expected to produce original scholarship in every respect”. Unlike in the academe
where originality is highly regarded as their writing can earn students and teachers
honor, a degree or distinction, “decisions of courts are not written to earn merit,
accolade, or prize as an original piece of work or art” - what matters is the production
of decisions that are just and right. Judges tend to lift passages from different
precedents and other writings with, at times, no attributions to the original authors.
A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Judicial Plagiarism
In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc., against
Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo
The Court cites Duncan Webb’s writing for the International Bar Association where
he states that lawyers who write about the law put their words and ideas in the public
domain “to be affirmed, adopted, criticized or rejected”. Thus, other lawyers can
freely draw from these words and ideas. The Court also cites Joyce C. George’s
Judicial Opinion Writing Handbook which states that:
“A judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or
appellate, is exempted from a charge of plagiarism even if
ideas, words or phrases from a law review article, novel,
thoughts published in a legal periodical or language from a
party’s brief are used without given attribution. Thus, judges
are free to use whatever resources they deem appropriate to
resolve the matter before them, without fear of reprisal. This
exemption applies to judicial writings intended to decide cases
for two reasons: the judge is not writing a literary work and,
more importantly, the purpose of writing is to resolve a dispute.
As a result, judges adjudicating cases are not subject to a claim
of legal plagiarism.”
The Court states that the lack of attribution to original writers has never been deemed
as plagiarism in judicial writings. In the case of the Vinuya Decision, the legal
researcher argued that attributions to the foreign authors were initially present in the
first draft but got deleted in the final editing of the decision. The court denied the
motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
III. Issue/s
A. Whether Justice Mariano Del Castillo committed plagiarism
B. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to decide in an administrative case (see
separate opinions)
C. Whether the legal researcher should also be liable (see separate opinions)
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis
A. On whether Del Castillo committed plagiarism
a. The legal researcher testified that she accidentally deleted the
attributions, together with some headings, while she was
finalizing the draft. The Court believed her due to lack of
motive for removing the attributions.
b. According to the Court, the foreign authors from whom Del
Castillo allegedly plagiarized were also not the originators of
PONENTE: Per Curiam
DIGEST MAKER: Daphne
 A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC [Vol. 642 | FEBRUARY 8, 2011]
Lopez v. Roxas In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc., against
Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo

the passages in question. Attributions to these originators ● An impeachable officer cannot be criminally prosecuted for the same
were present in the final draft offenses which constitute grounds for impeachment presupposes his
c. Because there was an attempt to provide the attributions, the continuance in office… There can be no bar to his criminal prosecution in
malicious intent component of “plagiarism” is not satisfied. courts. Nor does retirement bar an administrative investigation from
proceeding’
● Concurring Opinion
V. Disposition A. BRION
The Court denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.  Malicious intent is an essential component and this
was absent in Justice Del Castillo’s case. He never
VI. Notes made it seem that he was the original author of the
● Does it mean that judges are “copycats”? No. They identify the issues of passages.
the case and evaluate the principles and laws invoked by the parties. They  It was impossible for Justice Del Castillo to twist the
then draft come up with conclusions regarding the applicability of the meaning of the works of the foreign authors because:
invoked laws, rules or principles to the specific case. According to the o Attributions to these authors were deleted. It
Court, this is where the judges show “their genius, originality, and honest is impossible for readers of the decision to
labor”. connect the passages from Del Castillo to
● Impeachable offenses these authors if the words and meanings
○ Culpable violation of the constitution were twisted
○ Treason o The lifted passages are neutral statements
○ Tyranny (i.e state of international law at various
○ Bribery stages of its development)
○ Other high crimes  “Only errors tainted with fraud, corruption, or malice
○ Graft are subject to disciplinary action.” These errors were
○ Corruption not present.
○ Betrayal of public trust  Originality is not required for judges because they are
● Betrayal of public trust as a “catchall phrase”. It refers to: bound by stare decisis
○ Violation of oath of office  Court has no jurisdiction to discipline its Members,
○ All acts that are not punishable by statues as penal offenses but since the only way is through impeachment
render the officer unfit to continue in office  “The constitution is not a single-purpose document
○ Betrayal of public interest that focuses on one interest alone… impeachment was
○ Inexcusable negligence of duty never the totality of the administrative actions or
○ Tyrannical abuse of power remedies that the public or the court may take against
○ Breach of official duty by malfeasance or misfeasance cronyism, an erring Justice of the Court”. The Court still has the
favoritism, etc. to the prejudice of public interest which tend to right to protect its integrity
bring the office into disrepute.  Impeachment is a response to serious misuse of
○ Obstruction of justice
judicial power. A threat of impeachment for other
● Removal from office through means other than impeachment is misdemeanor would open the Justices to harassment
unconstitutional
 In the US: No inherent incompatibility exists between
● “Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding because conviction in an
the existence of the Congress’ power to impeach and
impeachment complaint is not a bar to criminal prosecution for the same
the Supreme Court’s power to discipline its own
act”
members  They can co-exist

A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC PONENTE: Per Curiam

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Judicial Plagiarism DIGEST MAKER: Daphne

 A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC
Lopez v. Roxas
 The court CAN hear the case as an Administrative
Matter
B. ABAD
 In response of Justice Carpio: The Court has no
intention of exercising the power of impeachment, but
it has the administrative authority to investigate and
discipline its Members for official infractions that are
not impeachable. Plagiarism is not a statutory offense
– it is an administrative infraction.
On the alleged violation of copyright, no such charge
has been filed against Justice Del Castillo. The Court
has no original jurisdiction over copyright law
violations.
 In response to Justice Sereno: on the lowering of
standards of judicial scholarship, negating educative
and moral directional value, the courts are focused on
deciding justly and honestly and is not so much
concerned with judicial scholarship. Courts also rely
on precedents and legal literature, which belong to the
public domain. Justice Sereno has “no right to preach
at the expense of the majority about ‘educative and
moral directional value’ since her standards are for the
academe, yet she has breached those standards in
various writings. Some of her writings contain
verbatim passages, lacking quotation marks, from
GATT Annex 2, Oppenheim’s Treatise, ADB, World
Bank, WTO, and Baker v. Carr.
● Dissenting Opinion
A. CARPIO
● The court has NO JURISDICTION to decide in an
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE. The power to decide
whether a justice has committed a misconduct belongs
exclusively to the Congress.
SECTION 3(1), ARTICLE XI of the constitution: The
House of Representatives shall have the exclusive
power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Judicial Plagiarism
[Vol. 642 | FEBRUARY 8, 2011]
In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc., against
Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo
SECTION 3(6): The Senate shall have the sole power
to try and decide cases of impeachment
SECTION 6, ARTICLE 8: The Supreme Court shal
have administrative supervision over all corts and the
personnel thereof
The Supreme Court en banc has the power to
discipline judges of lower courts but with regard to its
Members, the Court may only conduct an
investigation to see if there is basis for recommending
to the Congress an initiation of an impeachment.
● A judge still needs to comply with the Law on
Copyright
Failure to make attribution does not automatically
violate the Law on Copyright (i.e Works of the
Government are not subject to copyright). Failure to
make the proper attribution for a Work of the
Government is NOT ACTIONABLE, BUT
misquoting and twisting of any judicial decision,
statue, regulation or other Works of the Government if
done to mislead people IS actionable.
Copying pleadings without attribution is NOT
ACTIONABLE.
Whether the copying of passages from textbooks,
journals and non-government work with proper
attribution is actionable depends on the nature of the
passages. (i.e if copyrighted, failure to provide
attribution is a violation of Section 193 of the
Intellectual Property Code)
SECTION 193 of the Intellectual Property Code
Scope of Moral Rights - The author of a work shall,
independently of economic rights in Section 177…
have the right:
PONENTE: Per Curiam
DIGEST MAKER: Daphne
 A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC
Lopez v. Roxas
To require that the authorship of the works be
attributed to him, in particular, the right that his name,
as far as practicable, be indicated in a prominent way
on the copies, and in connection with the public use of
his work
To object to any distortion, mutilation, or other
modification of, or other derogatory action in relation
to his work which would be prejudicial to his honor
and reputation.
SECTION 184(k) allows: any use made of a work for
the purpose of judicial proceedings → allows lengthy
passages to be copied, makes no note on the obligation
of the judge to make proper attribution (Section 193
still protects the moral rights of the author)
Moral rights of the author =/= economic rights
Moral rights are the right to attribution (right to be
recognized as the originator of his work) and the right
to integrity (right to prevent any distortion or
misinterpretation of his work) → By signing the treaty
in the Berne Convention, the Philippines is required to
enact legislation protecting the moral rights of authors.
B. CARPIO-MORALES
● The Court has no jurisdiction on deciding on an
administrative case
● “The Court cannot proceed with the administrative
complaint against Justice Del Castillo for it will either
(i) take cognizance of an impeachable offense which it
has no jurisdiction to determine, or (ii) downplay the
questioned conduct and preempt the impeachment
proceedings.
● The legal researcher should be named and also held
liable for neglect of duty, just as the staff members of
Judge Reyes (see Random Facts), where physical
integrity of a ponencia was at stake. In this case, the
intellectual ponencia is at stake. The Court should not
value the physical integrity more than the intellectual
integrity.
A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Judicial Plagiarism
[Vol. 642 | FEBRUARY 8, 2011]
In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc., against
Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo
C. SERENO
 Judges do not need to strain themselves to make sure
their attribution of sources is up to the standard of the
academe but they still need to meet two standards –
diligence and honesty. A judge would find himself in a
situation of plagiarizing “if two situations coincide:
(1) the judge wittingly or unwittingly entrusts a legal
researcher with the task of drafting his judicial
opinion, and the legal researcher decides to commit
severe plagiarism; and (2) the judge: (a) does not read
and study the draft decision himself; (b) even if he
does read and study the same, the “red flags” that are
self-evident in the draft decision completely escape
him; or (c) despite having seen the red flags, he
ignores them.”
 Justice Del Castillo committed “severe plagiarism”.
52.9% of the words used in the discussion of
international law in the Vinuya decision are copied
without attribution. Passages from 1 book, 5 law
articles and a copyrighted report of the US
Congressional Research Service were found without
attribution. An honest and diligent judge would never
find himself in this situation.
o Multiple passages are copied verbatim with
some of them including direct copying of
even the footnotes
o Some sentences are put in different places
(i.e what is supposed to be the second
sentence in the foreign author’s work, is this
decision’s eighth)
o Some conclusion and analysis were copied
 Deliberateness of the plagiarism: The decision seemed
to have been written by a seasoned plagiarist, wherein
the writer cut passages and spread out the sentences,
then added transition words and phrases to make the
sentences flow as though it is the original thought of
the writer. Thus, the plagiarism seems deliberate.
PONENTE: Per Curiam
DIGEST MAKER: Daphne
 A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC
Lopez v. Roxas
 Extent of the plagiarism: Justice Del Castillo failed to
make necessary attributions 23 times and there were
36 missing footnotes.
 It is highly unlikely the the footnotes got accidentally
deleted, since it would require one to hover the mouse
the the superscript, to highlight it or double-click it,
then to press the backspace button. MS Word also has
a feature that notifies the researcher once there is a
discrepancy in footnote deletions.
 The quote:
“A judge writing to resolve a dispute,
whether trial or appellate… claim of
legal plagiarism.”
is often incorrectly used to justify the lifting of
passages by judges, but this quote is taken out of
context. The quote is not about whether a judge
committed plagiarism, but rather, whether the
plagiarism is actionable.
 In response to Abad’s allegations of plagiarism,
Sereno provides evidence to show that she either
properly cited her sources or that the sources she
allegedly plagiarized from were actually quoting her
previous works.
 “The judiciary’s power comes from its words alone –
judges command no army and control no purse…
Judges and the opinions they write are held, and must
be held, to high ethical standards.”
 “To be effective, the judiciary must maintain
legitimacy – and to maintain legitimacy, judges must
live up to the Model Code’s moral standards when
writing their opinions.”
 CANON 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
Rule 3.09. A judge should organize and supervise the
court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient
dispatch of business, and require at all times the
observance of high standards of public service and
fidelity
A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC
ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Judicial Plagiarism
[Vol. 642 | FEBRUARY 8, 2011]
In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc., against
Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo
Rule 3.10 A judge should take or initiate appropriate
disciplinary measures against lawyers or court
personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the
judge may have become aware.
 PARAGRAPH 7 of the Code of Judicial ethics: “they
should show full understanding of the case, avoid the
suspicion of arbitrary conclusion, promote confidence in
their intellectual integrity and contribute useful precedents
to the growth of law.”
VII. Random Facts
● Per Curiam: the decision was handed down as a whole and no particular
judge was identified as the author/ponente
● SECTION 13 of the Court’s Internal Rules
Ethics Committee: a Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards shall be
established the by following membership:
a. a working Vice-Chair appointed by the Chief Justice
b. 3 members chosen among themselves en banc by secret vote
c. a retired Supreme Court Justice chosen by the Chief Justice as a
non-voting observer-consultant.
● Ethics Committee:
○ Tasked to do preliminary investigations of all complaints
involving graft, corruption and violations of ethical standards
○ To submit findings and recommendations to the en banc
○ Monitor and report to the Court the progress of investigations
● 1999 Bar Examinations controversy: Justice Fidel Purisma failed to
disclose his relationship to an examinee (breach of duty and confidence).
He forfeited 50% of the fees due to him as chairperson. He retired before
the Court could impose further administrative sanctions.
● Undated Letter of Mr. Louis Biraogo: Justice Ruben Reyes was held liable
for GRAVE MISCONDUCT for leaking a confidential document (Fined
PHP 500,000 and disqualified to hold any office and employment in
government-owned and controlled corporations). There was an
unauthorized release of the unpromulgated ponencia of Justice Reyes
(Limkiachon cases). Justice Reyes and 2 members of his staff who were
named (unlike the legal researcher of Del Castillo). The 2 members were
liable for SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY for leaving a confidential
document in an unlocked drawer and for not shredding a page that needed
to be disposed of.
PONENTE: Per Curiam
DIGEST MAKER: Daphne
 A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC [Vol. 642 | FEBRUARY 8, 2011]
Lopez v. Roxas In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc., against
Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo

● Making proper corrections in court decisions and signed resolutions

○ With author’s name indicated: The reporter and the Chief of the
Management Information Systems Office of the Supreme Court
should secure the authority of the author to make necessary
corrections to typographical errors.
○ Per curiam cases: authority to make corrections should be
secured from the Chief Justice
○ Corrections shall be made by crossing out the incorrect word,
handwriting the correction immediately above the crossed-out
word. The author must authenticate this by signing his initial
below the correction. In per curiam cases or in cases where the
author is no longer a member of the Court, authentication shall
be made by the Chief Justice
● Research process of the legal researcher in Vinuya decision, according to
her testimony:
○ Typed in key words/phrases in Westlaw’s search service
○ Read all the materials that resulted from the search
○ Search engine generated a list of documents and linked items
based on corresponding online locations
○ Perused the generated list
○ Read articles and identified portions she planned to incorporate
into the draft
○ Through MS Word, she saved the selections in once document.
An honest researcher would have immediately copied and pasted
the citations or typed in a placeholder label to cite later on. “If
she did neither, she may be sloppy, incompetent or downright
dishonest”.
○ Incorporated selections into an existing draft or manuscript
● Plagiarism is not necessarily copyright infringement and vice versa.
○ Plagiarism “severs the connection between the original author’s
name and the work”, whereas attribution is irrelevant to a claim
of copyright infringement (e.g pirated edition of a book)

A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC PONENTE: Per Curiam

ARTICLE; TOPIC OF CASE: Judicial Plagiarism DIGEST MAKER: Daphne