Re Letter of the Up Faculty

7/26/2019 Re Letter of the Up Faculty

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/re-letter-of-the-up-faculty 1/21

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

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

D E C I S I O N

LEONAR!O-!E CASTRO, J.:

For disposition of the Court are the various submissions of the 37 respondent law professors1 in response to the Resolution dated Otober 1!" #$1$ %theShow Cause Resolution&" diretin' them to show ause wh( the( should not be disiplined as members of the )ar for violation of speifi provisions ofthe Code of *rofessional Responsibilit( enumerated therein+

,t the outset" it must be stressed that the Show Cause Resolution learl( do-ets this as an administrative matter" not a speial ivil ation for indiretontempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court" ontrar( to the dissentin' opinion of ,ssoiate .ustie /aria 0ourdes *+ ,+ Sereno %.ustie Sereno& to thesaid Otober 1!" #$1$ Show Cause Resolution+ Neither is this a disiplinar( proeedin' 'rounded on an alle'edl( irre'ularl( onluded findin' ofindiret ontempt as intimated b( ,ssoiate .ustie Conhita Carpio /orales %.ustie /orales& in her dissentin' opinions to both the Otober 1!" #$1$Show Cause Resolution and the present deision+

ith the nature of this ase as purel( a bar disiplinar( proeedin' firml( in mind" the Court finds that with the e2eption of one respondent whoseompliane was adeuate and another who manifested he was not a member of the *hilippine )ar" the submitted e2planations" bein' mere denialsand4or tan'ential to the issues at hand" are deidedl( unsatisfator(+ 5he proffered defenses even more ur'entl( behoove this Court to all the attentionof respondent law professors" who are members of the )ar" to the relationship of their duties as suh under the Code of *rofessional Responsibilit( totheir ivil ri'hts as iti6ens and aademis in our free and demorati republi+

5he provisions of the Code of *rofessional Responsibilit( involved in this ase are as follows

C,NON 1 8 , law(er shall uphold the onstitution" obe( the laws of the land and promote respet for law and le'al proesses+

R90E 1+$# : , law(er shall not ounsel or abet ativities aimed at defiane of the law or at lessenin' onfidene in the le'al s(stem+

C,NON 1$ : , law(er owes andor" fairness and 'ood faith to the ourt+

Rule 1$+$1 : , law(er shall not do an( falsehood" nor onsent to the doin' of an( in ourt; nor shall he mislead" or allow the Court tobe misled b( an( artifie+

Rule 1$+$# : , law(er shall not -nowin'l( misuote or misrepresent the ontents of paper" the lan'ua'e or the ar'ument of opposin'ounsel" or the te2t of a deision or authorit(" or -nowin'l( ite as law a provision alread( rendered inoperative b( repeal oramendment" or assert as a fat that whih has not been proved+

Rule 1$+$3 : , law(er shall observe the rules of proedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of <ustie+

C,NON 11 8 , law(er shall observe and maintain the respet due to the ourts and to <udiial offiers and should insist on similar ondut b( others+

R90E 11+$= , law(er shall submit 'rievanes a'ainst a .ud'e to the proper authorities onl(+

C,NON 13 8 , law(er shall rel( upon the merits of his ause and refrain from an( impropriet( whih tends to influene" or 'ives the appearane ofinfluenin' the ourt+

Established <urisprudene will undeniabl( support our view that when law(ers spea- their minds" the( must ever be mindful of their sworn oath toobserve ethial standards of their profession" and in partiular" avoid foul and abusive lan'ua'e to ondemn the Supreme Court" or an( ourt for thatmatter" for a deision it has rendered" espeiall( durin' the penden( of a motion for suh deision>s reonsideration+ 5he ausation of pla'iarisma'ainst a member of this Court is not the real issue here but rather this pla'iarism issue has been used to deflet ever(one>s attention from the atualonern of this Court to determine b( respondents> e2planations whether or not respondent members of the )ar have rossed the line of deen( andaeptable professional ondut and speeh and violated the Rules of Court throu'h improper intervention or interferene as third parties to a pendin'ase+ *reliminaril(" it should be stressed that it was respondents themselves who alled upon the Supreme Court to at on their Statement"# whih the(formall( submitted" throu'h Dean /arvi /+?+F+ 0eonen %Dean 0eonen&" for the Court>s proper disposition+ Considerin' the defenses of freedom ofspeeh and aademi freedom invo-ed b( the respondents" it is worth disussin' here that the le'al reasonin' used in the past b( this Court to rule thatfreedom of e2pression is not a defense in administrative ases a'ainst law(ers for usin' intemperate speeh in open ourt or in ourt submissions ansimilarl( be applied to respondents> invoation of aademi freedom+ Indeed" it is preisel( beause respondents are not merel( law(ers but law(erswho teah law and mould the minds of (oun' aspirin' attorne(s that respondents> own non:observane of the Code of *rofessional Responsibilit(" evenif purportedl( motivated b( the purest of intentions" annot be i'nored nor 'lossed over b( this Court+

5o full( appreiate the 'rave reperussions of respondents> atuations" it is apropos to revisit the fatual anteedents of this ase+

),C@ARO9ND OF 5BE C,SE

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/mar2011/am_10-10-4-sc_2011.html#fnt1








,nteedent Fats and *roeedin's

On ,pril #" #$1$" the ponenia of ,ssoiate .ustie /ariano del Castillo %.ustie Del Castillo& in ?inu(a" et al+ v+ E2eutive Seretar( %A+R+ No+ 1##3$&was promul'ated+ On /a( 31" #$1$" the ounsel3 for ?inu(a" et al + %the /ala(a 0olas&" filed a /otion for Reonsideration of the ?inu(a deision"raisin' solel( the followin' 'rounds

I+ Our own onstitutional and <urisprudential histories re<et this Bonorable Courts> %si& assertion that the E2eutive>s forei'n poli(prero'atives are virtuall( unlimited; preisel(" under the relevant <urisprudene and onstitutional provisions" suh prero'atives are prosribedb( international human ri'hts and humanitarian standards" inludin' those provided for in the relevant international onventions of whih the*hilippines is a part(+

II+ 5his Bonorable Court has onfused diplomati protetion with the broader" if fundamental" responsibilit( of states to protet the humanri'hts of its iti6ens G espeiall( where the ri'hts asserted are sub<et of er'a omnes obli'ations and pertain to <us o'ens norms+=

On .ul( 1!" #$1$" ounsel for the /ala(a 0olas" ,tt(s+ B+ Barr( 0+ Roue" .r+ %,tt(+ Roue& and Romel Re'alado )a'ares %,tt(+ )a'ares&" filed aSupplemental /otion for Reonsideration in A+R+ No+ 1##3$" where the( posited for the first time their har'e of pla'iarism as one of the 'rounds forreonsideration of the ?inu(a deision+ ,mon' other ar'uments" ,tt(s+ Roue and )a'ares asserted that

I+

IN 5BE FIRS5 *0,CE" I5 IS BIAB0H I/*RO*ER FOR 5BIS BONOR,)0E CO9R5>S .9DA/EN5 OF ,*RI0 #" #$1$ 5O *0,AI,RIE ,5 0E,S55BREE SO9RCES G ,N ,R5IC0E *9)0ISBED IN #$$! IN 5BE H,0E 0, .O9RN,0 OF IN5ERN,5ION,0 0," , )OO@ *9)0ISBED )H 5BEC,/)RIDAE 9NI?ERSI5H *RESS IN #$$= ,ND ,N ,R5IC0E *9)0ISBED IN #$$ IN 5BE C,SE ES5ERN RESER?E .O9RN,0 OFIN5ERN,5ION,0 0, G ,ND /,@E I5 ,**E,R 5B,5 5BESE SO9RCES S9**OR5 5BE .9DA/EN5>S ,RA9/EN5S FOR DIS/ISSINA 5BEINS5,N5 *E5I5ION BEN IN 5R95B" 5BE *0,AI,RIED SO9RCES E?EN /,@E , S5RONA C,SE FOR 5BE *E5I5ION>S C0,I/S+7

5he( also laimed that JiKn this ontrovers(" the evidene bears out the fat not onl( of e2tensive pla'iarism but of %si& also of twistin' the true intents ofthe pla'iari6ed soures b( the ponenia to suit the ar'uments of the assailed .ud'ment for den(in' the *etition+

,ordin' to ,tt(s+ Roue and )a'ares" the wor-s alle'edl( pla'iari6ed in the ?inu(a deision were namel( %1& Evan .+ Criddle and Evan Fo2:Deent>sartile , Fiduiar( 5heor( of .us Co'ens;! %#& Christian .+ 5ams> boo- Enforin' Er'a Omnes Obli'ations in International 0aw;1$ and %3& /ar- Ellis>artile )rea-in' the Silene On Rape as an International Crime+11

On the same da( as the filin' of the Supplemental /otion for Reonsideration on .ul( 1!" #$1$" <ournalists ,ries C+ Rufo and *urple S+ Romero postedan artile" entitled SC <ustie pla'iari6ed parts of rulin' on omfort women" on the Newsbrea- website+1# 5he same artile appeared on the A/, News5? website also on .ul( 1!" #$1$+13

On .ul( ##" #$1$" ,tt(+ Roue>s olumn" entitled *la'iari6ed and 5wisted" appeared in the /anila Standard 5oda(+1 In the said olumn" ,tt(+ Rouelaimed that *rof+ Evan Criddle" one of the authors purportedl( not properl( a-nowled'ed in the ?inu(a deision" onfirmed that his wor-" o:authoredwith *rof+ Evan Fo2:Deent" had been pla'iari6ed+ ,tt(+ Roue uoted *rof+ Criddle>s response to the post b( .ulian @u re'ardin' the news report 1= on

the alle'ed pla'iarism in the international law blo'" Opinio .uris+ *rof+ Criddle responded to @u>s blo' entr( in this wise

5he newspaper>s1 Jpla'iarismK laims are based on a motion for reonsideration filed (esterda( with the *hilippine Supreme Court (esterda(+ 5hemotion is available here

http44harr(roue+om4#$1$4$7414supplemental:motion:alle'in':pla'iarism:in:the:supreme:ourt4

5he motion su''ests that the Court>s deision ontains thirt(:four sentenes and itations that are idential to sentenes and itations in m( #$$! H.I0artile %o:authored with Evan Fo2:Deent&+ *rofessor Fo2:Deent and I were unaware of the petitioners> Jpla'iarismK alle'ations until after the motionwas filed toda(+

Spea-in' for m(self" the most troublin' aspet of the ourt>s <us o'ens disussion is that it implies that the prohibitions a'ainst rimes a'ainst humanit(se2ual slaver(" and torture are not <us o'ens norms+ Our artile emphatiall( asserts the opposite+ 5he Supreme Court>s deision is available herehttp44s+<udiiar(+'ov+ph4<urisprudene4#$1$4april#$1$41##3$+htm17

On even date" .ul( ##" #$1$" .ustie Del Castillo wrote to his ollea'ues on the Court in repl( to the har'e of pla'iarism ontained in the Supplemental/otion for Reonsideration+1

In a letter dated .ul( #3" #$1$" another purportedl( pla'iari6ed author in the ?inu(a deision" Dr+ /ar- Ellis" wrote the Court" to wit

Hour Bonours

I write onernin' a most deliate issue that has ome to m( attention in the last few da(s+

/uh as I re'ret to raise this matter before (our esteemed Court" I am ompelled" as a uestion of the inte'rit( of m( wor- as an aademi and as anadvoate of human ri'hts and humanitarian law" to ta-e e2eption to the possible unauthori6ed use of m( law review artile on rape as an internationalrime in (our esteemed Court>s .ud'ment in the ase of ?inu(a et al+ v+ E2eutive Seretar( et al+ %A+R+ No+ 1##3$" .ud'ment of # ,pril #$1$&+

























http://harryroque.com/2010/07/18/supplemental-motion-alleging-plagiarism-in-the-supreme-court/

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/162230.htm


















http://harryroque.com/2010/07/18/supplemental-motion-alleging-plagiarism-in-the-supreme-court/






/( attention was alled to the .ud'ment and the issue of possible pla'iarism b( the *hilippine hapter of the Southeast ,sia /edia 0e'al DefeneInitiative %SE,/0DI&"1! an affiliate of the 0ondon:based /edia 0e'al Defene Initiative %/0DI&" where I sit as trustee+

In partiular" I am onerned about a lar'e part of the e2tensive disussion in footnote =" pp+ #7:#" of the said .ud'ment of (our esteemed Court+ I amalso onerned that (our esteemed Court ma( have misread the ar'uments I made in the artile and emplo(ed them for ross purposes+ 5his would beironi sine the artile was written preisel( to ar'ue for the appropriate le'al remed( for vitims of war rimes" 'enoide" and rimes a'ainst humanit(+

I believe a full op( of m( artile as published in the Case estern Reserve .ournal of International 0aw in #$$ has been made available to (ouresteemed Court+ I trust that (our esteemed Court will ta-e the time to arefull( stud( the ar'uments I made in the artile+

I would appreiate reeivin' a response from (our esteemed Court as to the issues raised b( this letter+

ith respet"

%S'd+&Dr+ /ar- Ellis#$

In /emorandum Order No+ 3=:#$1$ issued on .ul( #7" #$1$" the Court formed the Committee on Ethis and Ethial Standards %the Ethis Committee&pursuant to Setion 13" Rule # of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court+ In an En )an Resolution also dated .ul( #7" #$1$" the Court referred the.ul( ##" #$1$ letter of .ustie Del Castillo to the Ethis Committee+ 5he matter was subseuentl( do-eted as ,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC+

On ,u'ust #" #$1$" the Ethis Committee reuired ,tt(s+ Roue and )a'ares to omment on the letter of .ustie Del Castillo+#1

On ,u'ust !" #$1$" a statement dated .ul( #7" #$1$" entitled Restorin' Inte'rit( , Statement b( the Fault( of the 9niversit( of the *hilippines Colle'eof 0aw on the ,lle'ations of *la'iarism and /isrepresentation in the Supreme Court %the Statement&" was posted in Newsbrea->s website## and on ,tt(+Roue>s blo'+#3 , report re'ardin' the statement also appeared on various on:line news sites" suh as the A/, News 5?# and the Sun Star #= sites" onthe same date+ 5he statement was li-ewise posted at the 9niversit( of the *hilippines Colle'e of 0aw>s bulletin board alle'edl( on ,u'ust 1$" #$1$# andat said olle'e>s website+#7

On ,u'ust 11" #$1$" Dean 0eonen submitted a op( of the Statement of the 9niversit( of the *hilippines Colle'e of 0aw Fault( %9* 0aw fault(& to theCourt" throu'h Chief .ustie Renato C+ Corona %Chief .ustie Corona&+ 5he over letter dated ,u'ust 1$" #$1$ of Dean 0eonen read

5he BonorableSupreme Court of the Republi of the *hilippines

5hrou'h Bon+ Renato C+ CoronaChief .ustie

Sub<et Statement of fault(

from the 9* Colle'e of 0awon the *la'iarism in the ase of ?inu(a v E2eutive Seretar(

Hour Bonors

e attah for (our information and proper disposition a statement si'ned b( thirt(J:Kei'ht %3&# members of the fault( of the 9* Colle'e of 0aw+ ehope that its points ould be onsidered b( the Supreme Court en ban+

Respetfull("

%S'd+&/arvi /+?+F+ 0eonenDean and *rofessor of 0aw

%Emphases supplied+&

5he op( of the Statement attahed to the above:uoted letter did not ontain the atual si'natures of the alle'ed si'natories but onl( stated the namesof 37 9* 0aw professors with the notation %SAD+& appearin' beside eah name+ For onvenient referene" the te2t of the 9* 0aw fault( Statement isreprodued here

RESTORN# NTE#RTY

, S5,5E/EN5 )H 5BE F,C905H OF5BE 9NI?ERSI5H OF 5BE *BI0I**INES CO00EAE OF 0,

ON 5BE ,00EA,5IONS OF *0,AI,RIS/ ,ND /ISRE*RESEN5,5IONIN 5BE S9*RE/E CO9R5



























,n e2traordinar( at of in<ustie has a'ain been ommitted a'ainst the brave Filipinas who had suffered abuse durin' a time of war+ ,fter the(oura'eousl( ame out with their ver( personal stories of abuse and sufferin' as omfort women" waited for almost two deades for an( meanin'fulrelief from their own 'overnment as well as from the 'overnment of .apan" 'ot their hopes up for a semblane of <udiial reourse in the ase of ?inu(av+ E2eutive Seretar(" A+R+ No+ 1##3$ %# ,pril #$1$&" the( onl( had these hopes rushed b( a sin'ularl( reprehensible at of dishonest( andmisrepresentation b( the Bi'hest Court of the land+

It is within this frame that the Fault( of the 9niversit( of the *hilippines Colle'e of 0aw views the har'e that an ,ssoiate .ustie of the Supreme Courtommitted pla'iarism and misrepresentation in ?inu(a v+ E2eutive Seretar(+ 5he pla'iarism and misrepresentation are not onl( affronts to theindividual sholars whose wor- have been appropriated without orret attribution" but also a serious threat to the inte'rit( and redibilit( of the*hilippine .udiial S(stem+

In ommon parlane" Lpla'iarism> is the appropriation and misrepresentation of another person>s wor- as one>s own+ In the field of writin'" it is heatin'at best" and stealin' at worst+ It onstitutes a ta-in' of someone else>s ideas and e2pressions" inludin' all the effort and reativit( that went intoommittin' suh ideas and e2pressions into writin'" and then ma-in' it appear that suh ideas and e2pressions were ori'inall( reated b( the ta-er+ It isdishonest(" pure and simple+ , <udiial s(stem that allows pla'iarism in an( form is one that allows dishonest(+ Sine all <udiial deisions form part of thelaw of the land" to allow pla'iarism in the Supreme Court is to allow the prodution of laws b( dishonest means+ Evidentl(" this is a omplete perversionand falsifiation of the ends of <ustie+

, omparison of the ?inu(a deision and the ori'inal soure material shows that the ponente merel( opied selet portions of other le'al writers> wor-sand interspersed them into the deision as if the( were his own" ori'inal wor-+ 9nder the irumstanes" however" beause the Deision has beenpromul'ated b( the Court" the Deision now beomes the Court>s and no lon'er <ust the ponente>s+ 5hus the Court also bears the responsibilit( for theDeision+ In the absene of an( mention of the ori'inal writers> names and the publiations from whih the( ame" the thin' spea-s for itself+

So far there have been unsatisfator( responses from the ponente of this ase and the spo-esman of the Court+

It is ar'ued" for e2ample" that the inlusion of the footnotes from the ori'inal artiles is a referene to the Lprimar(> soures relied upon+ 5his ursor(

e2planation is not aeptable" beause the ori'inal authors> writin's and the effort the( put into findin' and summari6in' those primar( soures arepreisel( the sub<et of pla'iarism+ 5he inlusion of the footnotes to'ether with portions of their writin's in fat a''ravates" instead of miti'ates" thepla'iarism sine it provides additional evidene of a deliberate intention to appropriate the ori'inal authors> wor- of or'ani6in' and anal(6in' thoseprimar( soures+

It is also ar'ued that the /embers of the Court annot be e2peted to be familiar with all le'al and sholarl( <ournals+ 5his is also not aeptable"beause personal unfamiliarit( with soures all the more demands orret and areful attribution and itation of the material relied upon+ It is a matter ofdili'ene and ompetene e2peted of all /a'istrates of the Bi'hest Court of the 0and+

)ut a far more serious matter is the ob<etion of the ori'inal writers" *rofessors Evan Criddle and Evan Fo2:Desent" that the Bi'h Court atuall(misrepresents the onlusions of their wor- entitled , Fiduiar( 5heor( of .us Co'ens" the main soure of the pla'iari6ed te2t+ In this artile the( ar'uethat the lassifiation of the rimes of rape" torture" and se2ual slaver( as rimes a'ainst humanit( have attained the status of <us o'ens" ma-in' itobli'ator( upon the State to see- remedies on behalf of its a''rieved iti6ens+ Het" the ?inu(a deision uses parts of the same artile to arrive at theontrar( onlusion+ 5his e2aerbates the intelletual dishonest( of op(in' wor-s without attribution b( transformin' it into an at of intelletual fraud b(op(in' wor-s in order to mislead and deeive+

5he ase is a potential landmar- deision in International 0aw" beause it deals with State liabilit( and responsibilit( for personal in<ur( and dama'esuffered in a time of war" and the role of the in<ured parties> home States in the pursuit of remedies a'ainst suh in<ur( or dama'e+ National ourts rarel(have suh opportunities to ma-e an international impat+ 5hat the petitioners were Filipino omfort women who suffered from horrifi abuse durin' theSeond orld ar made it inumbent on the Court of last resort to afford them ever( soliitude+ )ut instead of atin' with ur'en( on this ase" theCourt dela(ed its resolution for almost seven (ears" oblivious to the deaths of man( of the petitioners see-in' <ustie from the Court+ hen it dismissedthe Vinuya petition based on misrepresented and pla'iari6ed materials" the Court deided this ase based on polluted soures+ )( so doin'" theSupreme Court added insult to in<ur( b( failin' to atuall( e2erise its power to ur'e and e2hort the E2eutive Department to ta-e up the laims of theVinuya petitioners+ Its allous disposition" oupled with false s(mpath( and nonhalane" belies a more alarmin' la- of onern for even the most basivalues of deen( and respet+ 5he reputation of the *hilippine Supreme Court and the standin' of the *hilippine le'al profession before other.udiiaries and le'al s(stems are trul( at sta-e+

5he Bi'h Court annot aommodate less than absolute honest( in its deisions and annot aept e2uses for failure to attain the hi'hest standards ofondut imposed upon all members of the )enh and )ar beause these undermine the ver( foundation of its authorit( and power in a demoratisoiet(+ Aiven the Court>s reent histor( and the ontrovers( that surrounded it" it annot allow the har'es of suh lear and obvious pla'iarism to passwithout santion as this would onl( further erode faith and onfidene in the <udiial s(stem+ ,nd in li'ht of the si'nifiane of this deision to the uest

for <ustie not onl( of Fi lipino women" but of women elsewhere in the world who have suffered the horrors of se2ual abuse and e2ploitation in times ofwar" the Court annot oldl( den( relief and <ustie to the petitioners on the basis of pilfered and misinterpreted te2ts+

5he Court annot re'ain its redibilit( and maintain its moral authorit( without ensurin' that its own ondut" whether olletivel( or throu'h its /embersis be(ond reproah+ 5his neessaril( inludes ensurin' that not onl( the ontent" but also the proesses of preparin' and writin' its own deisions" areredible and be(ond uestion+ 5he ?inu(a Deision must be onsientiousl( reviewed and not asuall( ast aside" if not for the purpose of santion"then at least for the purpose of refletion and 'uidane+ It is an absolutel( essential step toward the establishment of a hi'her standard of professionalare and pratial sholarship in the )enh and )ar" whih are ritial to improvin' the s(stem of administration of <ustie in the *hilippines+ It is also aver( ruial step in ensurin' the position of the Supreme Court as the Final ,rbiter of all ontroversies a position that reuires ompetene and inte'rit(ompletel( above an( and all reproah" in aordane with the e2atin' demands of <udiial and professional ethis+

ith these onsiderations" and bearin' in mind the solemn duties and trust reposed upon them as teahers in the profession of 0aw" it is the opinion ofthe Fault( of the 9niversit( of the *hilippine Colle'e of 0aw that



%1& 5he pla'iarism ommitted in the ase of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary is unaeptable" unethial and in breah of the hi'hstandards of moral ondut and <udiial and professional ompetene e2peted of the Supreme Court;

%#& Suh a fundamental breah endan'ers the inte'rit( and redibilit( of the entire Supreme Court and undermines the foundationsof the *hilippine <udiial s(stem b( allowin' impliitl( the deision of ases and the establishment of le'al preedents throu'hdubious means;

%3& 5he same breah and onseuent disposition of the Vinuya ase does violene to the primordial funtion of the Supreme Courtas the ultimate dispenser of <ustie to all those who have been left without le'al or euitable reourse" suh as the petitionerstherein;

%& In li'ht of the e2tremel( serious and far:reahin' nature of the dishonest( and to save the honor and di'nit( of the SupremeCourt as an institution" it is neessar( for the ponente of ?inu(a v+ E2eutive Seretar( to resi'n his position" without pre<udie toan( other santions that the Court ma( onsider appropriate;

%=& 5he Supreme Court must ta-e this opportunit( to review the manner b( whih it onduts researh" prepares drafts" reahes andfinali6es deisions in order to prevent a reurrene of similar ats" and to provide lear and onise 'uidane to the )enh and )arto ensure onl( the hi'hest ualit( of le'al researh and writin' in pleadin's" pratie" and ad<udiation+

/alolm Ball" 9niversit( of the *hilippines Colle'e of 0aw" Mue6on Cit(" #7 .ul( #$1$+

&S#!.' MAR%C M.%.F. LEONENDean and *rofessor of 0aw

&S#!.' FROLAN M. $ACUN#ANDean %1!7:1!3& &S#!.' PACFCO A. A#A$NDean %1!!:1!!=&

&S#!.' MERLN M. MA#ALLONADean %1!!=:1!!!&

&S#!.' SAL%A!OR T. CARLOTADean %#$$=:#$$& and *rofessor of 0aw

RE#ULAR FACULTY

&S#!.' CARMELO %. SSON*rofessor

&S#!.' (AY L. $ATON#$ACAL ,ssistant *rofessor

&S#!.' PATRCA R.P. SAL%A!OR !AWAY ,ssoiate Dean and ,ssoiate *rofessor

&S#!.' E%ELYN &LEO' !. $ATTA! ,ssistant *rofessor

&S#!.' !ANTE $. #ATMAYTAN ,ssoiate *rofessor

&S#!.' #WEN #. !E %ERA ,ssistant *rofessor

&S#!.' THEO!ORE O. TE ,ssistant *rofessor

&S#!.' SOLOMON F. LUM$A ,ssistant *rofessor

&S#!.' FLORN T. HL$AY ,ssistant *rofessor

&S#!.' ROMMEL (. CASS ,ssistant *rofessor

LECTURERS

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

&S#!.' ARTHUR P. AUTEA &S#!.' !NA !. LUCENARO&S#!.' ROSA MARA (. $AUTSTA &S#!.' OWEN (. LYNCH

&S#!.' MAR) R. $OCO$O &S#!.' ANTONO M. SANTOS&S#!.' !AN P. CALCA &S#!.' %CENTE %. MEN!O*A

&S#!.' TRSTAN A. CATN!# &S#!.' RO!OLFO NOEL S. +UM$O&S#!.' SAN!RA MARE O. CORONEL &S#!.' #MELEEN FAYE $. TOM$OC

&S#!.' ROSARO O. #ALLO &S#!.' NCHOLAS FEL L. TY&S#!.' CONCEPCON L. (AR!ELE*A &S#!.' E%ALYN #. URSUA

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

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

%9ndersorin' supplied+&





/eanwhile" in a letter dated ,u'ust 1" #$1$" *rof+ Christian .+ 5ams made -nown his sentiments on the alle'ed pla'iarism issue to the Court+3$ euote *rof+ 5ams> letter here

Alas'ow" 1 ,u'ust #$1$

?inu(a" et al+ v+ E2eutive Seretar( et al+ %A+R+ No+ 1##3$&

Bon+ Renato C+ Corona" Chief .ustie

Hour E2ellen("

/( name is Christian .+ 5ams" and I am a professor of international law at the 9niversit( of Alas'ow+ I am writin' to (ou in relation to the use of one ofm( publiations in the above:mentioned <ud'ment of (our Bonourable Court+

5he relevant passa'e of the <ud'ment is to be found on p+ 3$ of (our Court>s .ud'ment" in the setion addressin' the onept of obli'ations er'a omnes ,s the table anne2ed to this letter shows" the relevant sentenes were ta-en almost word b( word from the introdutor( hapter of m( boo- Enforin'Obli'ations Er'a Omnes in International 0aw %Cambrid'e 9niversit( *ress #$$=&+ I note that there is a 'eneri referene to m( wor- in footnote ! of the.ud'ment" but as this is in relation to a itation from another author %)runo Simma& rather than with respet to the substantive passa'es reprodued inthe .ud'ment" I do not thin- i t an be onsidered an appropriate form of referenin'+

I am partiularl( onerned that m( wor- should have been used to support the .ud'ment>s autious approah to the er'a omnes onept+ In fat" amost ursor( readin' shows that m( boo->s entral thesis is preisel( the opposite namel( that the er'a omnes onept has been widel( aepted andhas a firm plae in ontemporar( international law+ Bene the introdutor( hapter notes that JtKhe present stud( attempts to dem(stif( aspets of theLver( m(sterious> onept and thereb( to failitate its implementation %p+ =&+ In the same vein" the onludin' setion notes that the preedin' haptersshow that the onept is now a part of the realit( of international law" established in the <urisprudene of ourts and the pratie of States %p+ 3$!&+

ith due respet to (our Bonourable Court" I am at a loss to see how m( wor- should have been ited to support G as it seemin'l( has G the oppositeapproah+ /ore 'enerall(" I am onerned at the wa( in whih (our Bonourable Court>s .ud'ment has drawn on sholarl( wor- without properl(a-nowled'in' it+

On both aspets" I would appreiate a prompt response from (our Bonourable Court+

I remain

Sinerel( (ours

%S'd+&Christian .+ 5ams31

In the ourse of the submission of ,tt(+ Roue and ,tt(+ )a'ares> e2hibits durin' the ,u'ust #" #$1$ hearin' in the ethis ase a'ainst .ustie DelCastillo" the Ethis Committee noted that E2hibit . %a op( of the Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement& was not si'ned but merel( refleted the names ofertain fault( members with the letters %SAD+& beside the names+ 5hus" the Ethis Committee direted ,tt(+ Roue to present the si'ned op( of thesaid Statement within three da(s from the ,u'ust # hearin'+3#

It was upon ompliane with this diretive that the Ethis Committee was 'iven a op( of the si'ned 9* 0aw Fault( Statement that showed on thesi'nature pa'es the names of the full roster of the 9* 0aw Fault(" 1 fault( members in all+ Indubitable from the atual si'ned op( of the Statementwas that onl( 37 of the 1 fault( members appeared to have si'ned the same+ Bowever" the 37 atual si'natories to the Statement did not inludeformer Supreme Court ,ssoiate .ustie ?iente ?+ /endo6a %.ustie /endo6a& as represented in the previous opies of the Statement submitted b(Dean 0eonen and ,tt(+ Roue+ It also appeared that ,tt(+ /i'uel R+ ,rmovit %,tt(+ ,rmovit& si'ned the Statement althou'h his name was not inludedamon' the si'natories in the previous opies submitted to the Court+ 5hus" the total number of ostensible si'natories to the Statement remained at 37+

5he Ethis Committee referred this matter to the Court en ban sine the same Statement" havin' been formall( submitted b( Dean 0eonen on ,u'ust11" #$1$" was alread( under onsideration b( the Court+33

In a Resolution dated Otober 1!" #$1$" the Court en ban made the followin' observations re'ardin' the 9* 0aw Fault( Statement

Notabl(" while the statement was meant to reflet the eduators> opinion on the alle'ations of pla'iarism a'ainst .ustie Del Castillo" the( treated suhalle'ation not onl( as an established fat" but a truth+ In partiular" the( e2pressed dissatisfation over .ustie Del Castillo>s e2planation on how he itedthe primar( soures of the uoted portions and (et arrived at a ontrar( onlusion to those of the authors of the artiles supposedl( pla'iari6ed+

)e(ond this" however" the statement bore ertain remar-s whih raise onern for the Court+ 5he openin' sentene alone is a 'rim preamble to theinstitutional atta- that la( ahead+ It reads

,n e2traordinar( at of in<ustie has a'ain been ommitted a'ainst the brave Filipinas who had suffered abuse durin' a time of war+

5he first para'raph onludes with a referene to the deision in ?inu(a v+ E2eutive Seretar( as a reprehensible at of dishonest( andmisrepresentation b( the Bi'hest Court of the land+ 2 2 2+













5he insult to the members of the Court was a''ravated b( imputations of deliberatel( dela(in' the resolution of the said ase" its dismissal on the basisof polluted soures" the Court>s alle'ed indifferene to the ause of petitioners Jin the ?inu(a aseK" as well as the supposed alarmin' la- of onernof the members of the Court for even the most basi values of deen( and respet+3 2 2 2+ %9ndersorin' ours+&

In the same Resolution" the Court went on to state that

hile most a'ree that the ri'ht to ritii6e the <udiiar( is ritial to maintainin' a free and demorati soiet(" there is also a 'eneral onsensus thathealth( ritiism onl( 'oes so far+ /an( t(pes of ritiism leveled at the <udiiar( ross the line to beome harmful and irresponsible atta-s+ 5hesepotentiall( devastatin' atta-s and un<ust ritiism an threaten the independene of the <udiiar(+ 5he ourt must insist on bein' permitted to proeedto the disposition of its business in an orderl( manner" free from outside interferene obstrutive of its funtions and tendin' to embarrass theadministration of <ustie+

5he Court ould hardl( pereive an( reasonable purpose for the fault(>s less than ob<etive omments e2ept to disredit the ,pril #" #$1$ Deision inthe ?inu(a ase and undermine the Court>s honest(" inte'rit( and ompetene in addressin' the motion for its reonsideration+ ,s if the ase on theomfort women>s laims is not ontroversial enou'h" the 9* 0aw fault( would fan the flames and invite resentment a'ainst a resolution that would notreverse the said deision+ 5his runs ontrar( to their obli'ation as law professors and offiers of the Court to be the first to uphold the di'nit( andauthorit( of this Court" to whih the( owe fidelit( aordin' to the oath the( have ta-en as attorne(s" and not to promote distrust in the administration of

<ustie+ 3= 2 2 2+ %Citations omitted; emphases and undersorin' supplied+&

5hus" the Court direted ,tt(s+ /arvi /+?+F+ 0eonen" Froilan /+ )aun'an" *aifio ,+ ,'abin" /erlin /+ /a'allona" Salvador 5+ Carlota" Carmelo ?+Sison" *atriia R+*+ Salvador Dawa(" Dante )+ Aatma(tan" 5heodore O+ 5e" Florin 5+ Bilba(" .a( 0+ )aton'baal" Evel(n %0eo& D+ )attad" Awen A+ De?era" Solomon F+ 0umba" Rommel .+ Casis" .ose Aerardo ,+ ,lampa(" /i'uel R+ ,rmovit" ,rthur *+ ,utea" Rosa /aria .+ )autista" /ar- R+ )oobo" Dan*+ Calia" 5ristan ,+ Catindi'" Sandra /arie O+ Coronel" Rosario O+ Aallo" Conepion 0+ .ardele6a" ,ntonio A+/+ 0a ?ia" Carina C+ 0aforte6a" .ose C+0aureta" Owen .+ 0(nh" Rodolfo Noel S+ Muimbo" ,ntonio /+ Santos" Ameleen Fa(e )+ 5ombo" Niholas Feli2 0+ 5(" Eval(n A+ 9rsua" Raul 5+?asue6" Susan D+ ?illanueva and Dina D+ 0uenario to show ause" within ten %1$& da(s from reeipt of the op( of the Resolution" wh( the( should nobe disiplined as members of the )ar for violation of Canons 1"3 11 and 13 and Rules 1+$# and 11+$= of the Code of *rofessional Responsibilit(+37

Dean 0eonen was li-ewise direted to show ause within the same period wh( he should not be disiplinaril( dealt with for violation of Canon 1$" Rules1$+$1" 1$+$# and 1$+$3 for submittin' throu'h his letter dated ,u'ust 1$" #$1$" durin' the penden( of A+R+ No+ 1##3$ and of the investi'ation beforethe Ethis Committee" for the onsideration of the Court en ban" a dumm( whih is not a true and faithful reprodution of the 9* 0aw Fault(Statement+3

In the same Resolution" the present ontrovers( was do-eted as a re'ular administrative matter+

Summaries of the *leadin's Filed b( Respondents in Response to the Otober 1!" #$1$ Show Cause Resolution

On November 1!" #$1$" within the e2tension for filin' 'ranted b( the Court" respondents filed the followin' pleadin's

%1& Compliane dated November 1" #$1$ b( ounsels for 3= of the 37 respondents" e2ludin' *rof+ Owen 0(nh and *rof+ Raul 5+ ?asue6"in relation to the har'e of violation of Canons 1" 11 and 13 and Rules 1+$# and 11+$= of the Code of *rofessional Responsibilit(;

%#& Compliane and Reservation dated November 1" #$1$ b( *rof+ Rosa /aria 5+ .uan:)autista in relation to the same har'e in par+ %1&;

%3& Compliane dated November 1!" #$1$ b( ounsel for *rof+ Raul 5+ ?asue6 in relation to the same har'e in par+ %1&;

%& Compliane dated November 1!" #$1$ b( ounsels for Dean 0eonen" in relation to the har'e of violation of Canon 1$" Rules 1$+$1" 1$+$#and 1$+$3; and

%=& /anifestation dated November 1!" #$1$ b( ounsel for *rof+ Owen 0(nh+

Common Compliane of 3= Respondents %E2ludin' *rof+ Owen 0(nh and *rof+ Raul ?asue6&

5hirt(:five %3=& of the respondent 9* 0aw professors filed on November 1!" #$1$ a ommon ompliane whih was si'ned b( their respetive ounsels%the Common Compliane&+ In the *refae of said Common Compliane" respondents stressed that Jthe(K issued the Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement in

the dishar'e of the Lsolemn duties and trust reposed upon them as teahers in the profession of law"> and as members of the )ar to spea- out on amatter of publi onern and one that is of vital interest to them+3! 5he( li-ewise alle'ed that the( ated with the purest of intentions and pointed outthat none of them was involved either as part( or ounsel$ in the ?inu(a ase+ Further" respondents note with onern that the Show CauseResolution>s findin's and onlusions were a pre<ud'ment G that respondents indeed are in ontempt" have breahed their obli'ations as lawprofessors and offiers of the Court" and have violated LCanons J1K" 11 and 13 and Rules 1+$# and 11+$= of the Code of *rofessional Responsibilit(+1

)( wa( of e2planation" the respondents emphasi6ed the followin' points

%a& Respondents> alle'ed noble intentions

In response to the har'es of failure to observe due respet to le'al proesses# and the ourts3 and of tendin' to influene" or 'ivin' theappearane of influenin' the Court in the issuane of their Statement" respondents assert that their intention was not to mali'n the Courtbut rather to defend its inte'rit( and redibilit( and to ensure ontinued onfidene in the le'al s(stem+ 5heir noble motive was purportedl(evidened b( the portion of their Statement fousin' on onstrutive ation+= Respondents> all in the Statement for the Court to provide



































lear and onise 'uidane to the )enh and )ar to ensure onl( the hi'hest ualit( of le'al researh and writin' in ad<udiation" wasreputedl( in -eepin' with stritures en<oinin' law(ers to Lpartiipate in the development of the le'al s(stem b( initiatin' or supportin' efforts inlaw reform and in the improvement of the administration of <ustie> %under Canon of the Code of *rofessional Responsibilit(& and topromote respet for the law and le'al proesses %under Canon 1" id+&+ Furthermore" as aademis" the( alle'edl( have a speial interestand dut( to vi'ilantl( 'uard a'ainst pla'iarism and misrepresentation beause these unwelome ourrenes have a profound impat in theaademe" espeiall( in our law shools+7

Respondents further JalledK on this Court not to misonstrue the Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement as an Linstitutional atta-> 2 2 2 on the basis ofits first and ninth para'raphs+ 5he( further larified that at the time the Statement was alle'edl( drafted and a'reed upon" it appeared tothem the Court was not 'oin' to ta-e an( ation on the 'rave and startlin' alle'ations of pla'iarism and misrepresentation+! ,ordin' torespondents" the bases for their belief were %i& the news artile published on .ul( #1" #$1$ in the *hilippine Dail( Inuirer wherein Court

,dministrator .ose /idas *+ /arue6 was reported to have said that Chief .ustie Corona would not order an inuir( into the matter;=$ and %ii&the .ul( ##" #$1$ letter of .ustie Del Castillo whih the( laimed did nothin' but to downpla( the 'ravit( of the pla'iarism andmisrepresentation har'es+=1 Respondents laimed that it was their pereption of the Court>s indifferene to the dan'ers posed b( thepla'iarism alle'ations a'ainst .ustie Del Castillo that impelled them to ur'entl( ta-e a publi stand on the issue+

%b& 5he orretness of respondents> position that .ustie Del Castillo ommitted pla'iarism and should be held aountable in aordanewith the standards of aademi writin'

, si'nifiant portion of the Common Compliane is devoted to a disussion of the merits of respondents> har'e of pla'iarism a'ainst .ustieDel Castillo+ Rel(in' on 9niversit( of the *hilippines )oard of Re'ents v+ Court of ,ppeals=# and forei'n materials and <urisprudene"respondents essentiall( ar'ue that their position re'ardin' the pla'iarism har'e a'ainst .ustie Del Castillo is the orret view and that the(are therefore <ustified in issuin' their Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement+ ,ttahments to the Common Compliane inluded" amon' others %i& theletter dated Otober #" #$1$ of *eter )+ *a(o(o" 00+/" *h+D+"=3 sent to Chief .ustie Corona throu'h .ustie Sereno" alle'in' that the ?inu(adeision li-ewise lifted without proper attribution the te2t from a le'al artile b( /ariana Sala6ar ,lborno6 that appeared in the ,nuario/e2iano De Dereho Internaional and from an International Court of .ustie deision; and %ii& a #$$ Buman Ri'hts 0aw Review ,rtileentitled Se2ual Orientation" Aender Identit( and International Buman Ri'hts 0aw b( /ihael O>Flahert( and .ohn Fisher" in support of their

har'e that .ustie Del Castillo also lifted passa'es from said artile without proper attribution" but this time" in his ponenia in ,n' 0adlad0A)5 *art( v+ Commission on Eletions+=

%& Respondents> belief that the( are bein' sin'led out b( the Court when others have li-ewise spo-en on the pla'iarism issue

In the Common Compliane" respondents li-ewise asserted that the pla'iarism and misrepresentation alle'ations are le'itimate publiissues+== 5he( identified various published reports and opinions" in a'reement with and in opposition to the stane of respondents" on theissue of pla'iarism" speifiall(

%i& Newsbrea- report on .ul( 1!" #$1$ b( ,ries Rufo and *urple Romero;=

%ii& Column of Ramon 5ulfo whih appeared in the *hilippine Dail( Inuirer on .ul( #" #$1$;=7

%iii& Editorial of the *hilippine Dail( Inuirer published on .ul( #=" #$1$;=

%iv& 0etter dated .ul( ##" #$1$ of .ustie Del Castillo published in the *hilippine Star on .ul( 3$" #$1$;=!

%v& Column of Former Intelletual *ropert( Offie Diretor Aeneral ,drian Cristobal" .r+ published in the )usiness /irror on ,u'ust =#$1$;$

%vi& Column of Former Chief .ustie ,rtemio *an'aniban published in the *hilippine Dail( Inuirer on ,u'ust " #$1$;1

%vii& News report re'ardin' Senator Franis *an'ilinan>s all for the resi'nation of .ustie Del Castillo published in the Dail( 5ribuneand the /anila Standard 5oda( on .ul( 31" #$1$;#

%viii& News reports re'ardin' the statement of Dean Cesar ?illanueva of the ,teneo de /anila 9niversit( Shool of 0aw on the allsfor the resi'nation of .ustie Del Castillo published in 5he /anila )ulletin" the *hilippine Star and the )usiness /irror on ,u'ust 11"#$1$;3

%i2& News report on e2pressions of support for .ustie Del Castillo from a former dean of the *amantasan n' 0un'sod n' /a(nila"the *hilippine Constitutional ,ssoiation" the .ud'es ,ssoiation of )ulaan and the Inte'rated )ar of the *hilippines G )ulaanChapter published in the *hilippine Star on ,u'ust 1" #$1$; and

%2& 0etter of the Dean of the 0ieo de Ca'a(an 9niversit( Colle'e of 0aw published in the *hilippine Dail( Inuirer on ,u'ust 1$"#$1$+=

In view of the fore'oin'" respondents alle'ed that this Court has sin'led them out for santions and the har'e in the Show Cause Resolutiondated Otober 1!" #$1$ that the( ma( have violated speifi anons of the Code of *rofessional Responsibilit( is unfair and without basis+

%d& Freedom of e2pression


















































In para'raphs # to 3$ of the Common Compliane" respondents briefl( disussed their position that in issuin' their Statement" the( shouldbe seen as not onl( to be performin' their duties as members of the )ar" offiers of the ourt" and teahers of law" but also as iti6ens of ademora( who are onstitutionall( proteted in the e2erise of free speeh+ In support of this ontention" the( ited 9nited States v+)ustos"7 In re ,tt(+ ?iente Raul ,lmaen" and In the /atter of *etition for Delarator( Relief Re Constitutionalit( of Republi ,t $"Aon6ales v+ Commission on Eletions+!

%e& ,ademi freedom

In para'raphs 31 to 3 of the Common Compliane" respondents asserted that their Statement was also issued in the e2erise of their aademifreedom as teahers in an institution of hi'her learnin'+ 5he( relied on Setion = of the 9niversit( of the *hilippines Charter of #$$ whih provided thatJtKhe national universit( has the ri'ht and responsibilit( to e2erise aademi freedom+ 5he( li-ewise adverted to Aaria v+ 5he Fault( ,dmission

Committee" 0o(ola Shool of 5heolo'(7$

whih the( laimed reo'ni6ed the e2tent and breadth of suh freedom as to enoura'e a free and health(disussion and ommuniation of a fault( member>s field of stud( without fear of reprisal+ It is respondents> view that had the( remained silent on thepla'iarism issue in the ?inu(a deision the( would have ompromised JtheirK inte'rit( and redibilit( as teahers; Jtheir sileneK would have reated aulture and 'eneration of students" professionals" even law(ers" who would la- the ompetene and disipline for researh and pleadin'; or" worse"JthatK their silene would have ommuniated to the publi that pla'iarism and misrepresentation are inonseuential matters and that intelletualinte'rit( has no bearin' or relevane to one>s ondut+71

In losin'" respondents> Common Compliane e2horted this Court to onsider the followin' portion of the dissentin' opinion of .ustie Aeor'e ,+/alolm in Saledo v+ Bernande6"7# to wit

Respet for the ourts an better be obtained b( followin' a alm and impartial ourse from the benh than b( an attempt to ompel respet for the <udiiar( b( hastisin' a law(er for a too vi'orous or in<udiious e2position of his side of a ase+ 5he *hilippines needs law(ers of independent thou'htand oura'eous bearin'" <ealous of the interests of their lients and unafraid of an( ourt" hi'h or low" and the ourts will do well tolerantl( to overloo-oasional intemperate lan'ua'e soon to be re'retted b( the law(er whih affets in no wa( the outome of a ase+73

On the matter of the reliefs to whih respondents believe the( are entitled" the Common Compliane stated" thus

BEREFORE

,+ Respondents" as iti6ens of a demora(" professors of law" members of the )ar and offiers of the Court" respetfull( pra( that

1+ the fore'oin' be noted; and

#+ the Court reonsider and reverse its adverse findin's in the Show Cause Resolution" inludin' its onlusions that respondentshave JaK breahed their obli'ation as law professors and offiers of the Court to be the first to uphold the di'nit( and authorit( ofthis Court" and not to promote distrust in the administration of <ustie; and JbK ommitted violations of Canons 1$" 11" and 13and Rules 1+$# and 11+$= of the Code of *rofessional Responsibilit(+

)+ In the event the Bonorable Court delines to 'rant the fore'oin' pra(er" respondents respetfull( pra(" in the alternative" and in assertion of

their due proess ri'hts" that before final <ud'ment be rendered

1+ the Show Cause Resolution be set for hearin';

#+ respondents be 'iven a fair and full opportunit( to refute and4or address the findin's and onlusions of fat in the Show CauseResolution %inludin' espeiall( the findin' and onlusion of a la- of maliious intent&" and in that onnetion" that appropriateproedures and shedules for hearin' be adopted and defined that will allow them the full and fair opportunit( to reuire theprodution of and to present testimonial" doumentar(" and ob<et evidene bearin' on the pla'iarism and misrepresentation issuesin ?inu(a v+ E2eutive Seretar( %A+R+ No+ 1##3$" ,pril #" #$1$& and In the /atter of the Char'es of *la'iarism" et+ ,'ainst

,ssoiate .ustie /ariano C+ Del Castillo %,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC&; and

3+ respondents be 'iven fair and full aess to the transripts" reords" drafts" reports and submissions in or relatin' to" andaorded the opportunit( to ross:e2amine the witnesses who were or ould have been alled in In 5he /atter of the Char'es of*la'iarism" et+ ,'ainst ,ssoiate .ustie /ariano C+ Del Castillo %,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC&+7

Compliane and Reservation of *rof+ Rosa /aria 5+ .uan:)autista

,lthou'h alread( inluded in the Common Compliane" *rof+ Rosa /aria 5+ .uan:)autista %*rof+ .uan:)autista& filed a separate Compliane andReservation %the )autista Compliane&" wherein she adopted the alle'ations in the Common Compliane with some additional averments+

*rof+ .uan:)autista reiterated that her due proess ri'hts alle'edl( entitled her to hallen'e the findin's and onlusions in the Show Cause Resolution+Furthermore" JiKf the Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement an be onsidered indiret ontempt" under Setion 3 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court" suh ma( bepunished onl( after har'e and hearin'+7=

*rof+ .uan:)autista stressed that respondents si'ned the Statement in 'ood faith and with the best intentions to protet the Supreme Court b( as-in'one member to resi'n+7 For her part" *rof+ .uan:)autista intimated that her deep disappointment and sadness for the pli'ht of the /ala(a 0olas werewhat motivated her to si'n the Statement+





























On the point of aademi freedom" *rof+ .uan:)autista ited <urisprudene77 whih in her view hi'hli'hted that aademi freedom is onstitutionall('uaranteed to institutions of hi'her learnin' suh that shools have the freedom to determine for themselves who ma( teah" what ma( be tau'ht" howlessons shall be tau'ht and who ma( be admitted to stud( and that ourts have no authorit( to interfere in the shools> e2erise of disretion in thesematters in the absene of 'rave abuse of disretion+ She laims the Court has enroahed on the aademi freedom of the 9niversit( of the *hilippinesand other universities on their ri'ht to determine how lessons shall be tau'ht+

0astl(" *rof+ .uan:)autista asserted that the Statement was an e2erise of respondents> onstitutional ri'ht to freedom of e2pression that an onl( beurtailed when there is 'rave and imminent dan'er to publi safet(" publi morale" publi health or other le'itimate publi interest+7

Compliane of *rof+ Raul 5+ ?asue6

On November 1!" #$1$" *rof+ Raul 5+ ?asue6 %*rof+ ?asue6& filed a separate Compliane b( re'istered mail %the ?asue6 Compliane&+ In saidCompliane" *rof+ ?asue6 narrated the irumstanes surroundin' his si'nin' of the Statement+ Be alle'ed that the ?inu(a deision was a topi ofonversation amon' the 9* 0aw fault( earl( in the first semester %of aademi (ear #$1$:11& beause it reportedl( ontained itations not properl(attributed to the soures; that he was shown a op( of the Statement b( a ler- of the Offie of the Dean on his wa( to his lass; and that" a'reein' inpriniple with the main theme advaned b( the Statement" he si'ned the same in utmost 'ood faith+7!

In response to the diretive from this Court to e2plain wh( he should not be disiplined as a member of the )ar under the Show Cause Resolution" *rof+?asue6 also too- the position that a law(er has the ri'ht" li-e all iti6ens in a demorati soiet(" to omment on ats of publi offiers+ Be invited theattention of the Court to the followin' authorities %a& In re ?iente Sotto;$ %b& In re ,tt(+ ?iente Raul ,lmaen;1 and %& a disussion appearin' in

,merian .urisprudene %,m.ur& #d+# Be laims that he never had an( intention to undul( influene" nor entertained an( illusion that he ould or shouldinfluene" Jthe CourtK in its disposition of the ?inu(a ase3 and that atta-in' the inte'rit( of Jthe CourtK was the farthest thin' on respondent>s mindwhen he si'ned the Statement+ 9nli-e his ollea'ues" who wish to impress upon this Court the purported homo'eneit( of the v iews on whatonstitutes pla'iarism" *rof+ ?asue6 stated in his Compliane that

13+ )efore this Bonorable Court rendered its Deision dated 1# Otober #$1$" some espoused the view that willful and deliberate intent to ommit

pla'iarism is an essential element of the same+ Others" li-e respondent" were of the opinion that pla'iarism is ommitted re'ardless of the intent of theperpetrator" the wa( it has alwa(s been viewed in the aademe+ 5his unertaint( made the issue a fair topi for aademi disussion in the Colle'e+Now" this Bonorable Court has ruled that pla'iarism presupposes deliberate intent to steal another>s wor- and to pass it off as one>s own+= %Emphasessupplied+&

,lso in ontrast to his ollea'ues" *rof+ ?asue6 was willin' to onede that he mi'ht have been remiss in orretl( assessin' the effets of suhlan'ua'e Jin the StatementK and ould have been more areful+ Be ends his disussion with a respetful submission that with his e2planation" he hasfaithfull( omplied with the Show Cause Resolution and that the Court will rule that he had not in an( manner violated his oath as a law(er and offier ofthe Court+

Separate Compliane of Dean 0eonen re'ardin' the har'e of violation of Canon 1$ in relation to his submission of a dumm( of the 9* 0aw Fault(Statement to this Court

In his Compliane" Dean 0eonen laimed that there were three drafts4versions of the 9* 0aw Fault( Statement" whih he desribed as follows

Restorin' Inte'rit( I whih bears the entire roster of the fault( of the 9* Colle'e of 0aw in its si'nin' pa'es" and the atual si'natures of

the thirt(:seven %37& fault( members sub<et of the Show Cause Resolution+ , op( was filed with the Bonorable Court b( Roue and)utu(an on 31 ,u'ust #$1$ in ,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC+

Restorin' Inte'rit( II whih does not bear an( atual ph(sial si'nature" but whih reflets as si'natories the names of thirt(:seven %37&

members of the fault( with the notation %SAD+&+ , op( of Restorin' Inte'rit( II was publil( and ph(siall( posted in the 9* Colle'e of 0awon 1$ ,u'ust #$1$+ ,nother op( of Restorin' Inte'rit( II was also offiiall( reeived b( the Bonorable Court from the Dean of the 9* Colle'eof 0aw on 11 ,u'ust #$1$" almost three wee-s before the filin' of Restorin' Inte'rit( I+

Restorin' Inte'rit( III whih is a reprintin' of Restorin' Inte'rit( II" and whih presentl( serves as the offiial file op( of the Dean>s Offie

in the 9* Colle'e of 0aw that ma( be si'ned b( other fault( members who still wish to+ It bears the atual si'natures of the thirt(: sevenori'inal si'natories to Restorin' Inte'rit( I above their printed names and the notation %SAD+& and" in addition" the atual si'natures of ei'ht%& other members of the fault( above their handwritten or t(pewritten names+7

For purposes of this disussion" onl( Restorin' Inte'rit( I and Restorin' Inte'rit( II are relevant sine what Dean 0eonen has been direted to e2plain

are the disrepanies in the si'nature pa'es of these two douments+ Restorin' Inte'rit( III was never submitted to this Court+

On how Restorin' Inte'rit( I and Restorin' Inte'rit( II were prepared and ame about" Dean 0eonen alle'ed" thus

#+# On #7 .ul( #$1$" sensin' the emer'ene of a relativel( broad a'reement in the fault( on a draft statement" Dean 0eonen instruted hisstaff to print the draft and irulate it amon' the fault( members so that those who wished to ma( si'n+ For this purpose" the staff enodedthe law fault( roster to serve as the printed draft>s si'nin' pa'es+ 5hus did the first printed draft of the Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement"Restorin' Inte'rit( I" ome into bein'+

#+3+ ,s of #7 .ul( #$1$" the date of the Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement" Dean 0eonen was unaware that a /otion for Reonsideration of theBonorable Court>s Deision in ?inu(a vs+ E2eutive Seretar( %A+R+ No+ 1##3$" # ,pril #$1$& had alread( been filed" or that the BonorableCourt was in the proess of onvenin' its Committee on Ethis and Ethial Standards in ,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC+




































#++ Dean 0eonen>s staff then irulated Restorin' Inte'rit( I amon' the members of the fault(+ Some fault( members visited the Dean>sOffie to si'n the doument or had it brou'ht to their lassrooms in the Colle'e of 0aw" or to their offies or residenes+ Still other fault(members who" for one reason or another" were unable to si'n Restorin' Inte'rit( I at that time" nevertheless onve(ed to Dean 0eonen theirassuranes that the( would si'n as soon as the( ould mana'e+

#+=+ Sometime in the seond wee- of ,u'ust" <ud'in' that Restorin' Inte'rit( I had been irulated lon' enou'h" Dean 0eonen instruted hisstaff to reprodue the statement in a st(le and manner appropriate for postin' in the Colle'e of 0aw+ Followin' his own established pratie inrelation to si'nifiant publi issuanes" he direted them to reformat the si'nin' pa'es so that onl( the names of those who si'ned the firstprinted draft would appear" to'ether with the orrespondin' %SAD+& note followin' eah name+ Restorin' Inte'rit( II thus ame into bein'+

,ordin' to Dean 0eonen" the pratie of eliminatin' blan-s opposite or above the names of non:si'natories in the final draft of si'nifiant publi

issuanes" is meant not so muh for aestheti onsiderations as to seure the inte'rit( of suh douments+!

Be li-ewise laimed that JpKostin'statements with blan-s would be an open invitation to vandals and pran-sters+!$

ith respet to the inlusion of .ustie /endo6a>s name as amon' the si'natories in Restorin' Inte'rit( II when in fat he did not si'n Restorin' Inte'rit(I" Dean 0eonen attributed the mista-e to a misommuniation involvin' his administrative offier+ In his Compliane" he narrated that

#+7+ 9pon bein' presented with a draft of Restorin' Inte'rit( II with the reformatted si'nin' pa'es" Dean 0eonen notied the inlusion of thename of .ustie /endo6a amon' the %SAD+& si'natories+ ,s .ustie /endo6a was not amon' those who had ph(siall( si'ned Restorin'Inte'rit( I when it was previousl( irulated" Dean 0eonen alled the attention of his staff to the inlusion of the .ustie>s name amon' the%SAD+& si'natories in Restorin' Inte'rit( II+

#++ Dean 0eonen was told b( his administrative offier that she had spo-en to .ustie /endo6a over the phone on Frida(" $ ,u'ust #$1$+ ,ordin' to her" .ustie /endo6a had authori6ed the dean to si'n the Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement for him as he a'reed fundamentall( withits ontents+ ,lso aordin' to her" .ustie /endo6a was unable at that time to si'n the Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement himself as he wasleavin' for the 9nited States the followin' wee-+ It would later turn out that this aount was not entirel( aurate+!1 %9ndersorin' and italis

supplied+&

Dean 0eonen laimed that he had no reason to doubt his administrative offier" however" and so plaed full reliane on her aount!# as JtKhere wereindeed other fault( members who had also authori6ed the Dean to indiate that the( were si'natories" even thou'h the( were at that time unable toaffi2 their si'natures ph(siall( to the doument+!3

Bowever" after reeivin' the Show Cause Resolution" Dean 0eonen and his staff reviewed the irumstanes surroundin' their effort to seure .ustie/endo6a>s si'nature+ It would turn out that this was what atuall( transpired

#+##+1+ On Frida(" $ ,u'ust #$1$" when the dean>s staff tal-ed to .ustie /endo6a on the phone" he J.ustie /endo6aK indeed initiall(a'reed to si'n the Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement as he fundamentall( a'reed with i ts ontents+ Bowever" .ustie /endo6a did not e2atl( sa(that he authori6ed the dean to si'n the Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement+ Rather" he inuired if he ould authori6e the dean to si'n it for him as hewas about to leave for the 9nited States+ 5he dean>s staff informed him that the( would" at an( rate" still tr( to brin' the Restorin' Inte'rit(Statement to him+

#+##+#+ Due to some administrative diffiulties" .ustie /endo6a was unable to si'n the Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement before he left for the9+S+ the followin' wee-+

#+##+3+ 5he staff was able to brin' Restorin' Inte'rit( III to .ustie /endo6a when he went to the Colle'e to teah on # September #$1$" ada( after his arrival from the 9+S+ 5his time" .ustie /endo6a delined to si'n+!

,ordin' to the Dean

#+#3+ It was onl( at this time that Dean 0eonen reali6ed the true import of the all he reeived from .ustie /endo6a in late September+ Indeed" .ustie/endo6a onfirmed that b( the time the hard op( of the Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement was brou'ht to him shortl( after his arrival from the 9+S+" hedelined to si'n it beause it had alread( beome ontroversial+ ,t that time" he predited that the Court would ta-e some form of ation a'ainst thefault(+ )( then" and under those irumstanes" he wanted to show due deferene to the Bonorable Court" bein' a former ,ssoiate .ustie and notwishin' to undul( a''ravate the situation b( si'nin' the Statement+!= %Emphases supplied+&

ith respet to the omission of ,tt(+ ,rmovit>s name in the si'nature pa'e of Restorin' Inte'rit( II when he was one of the si'natories of Restorin'Inte'rit( I and the erroneous desription in Dean 0eonen>s ,u'ust 1$" #$1$ letter that the version of the Statement submitted to the Court was si'ned b(3 members of the 9* 0aw Fault(" it was e2plained in the Compliane that

Respondent ,tt(+ /i'uel ,rmovit ph(siall( si'ned Restorin' Inte'rit( I when it was irulated to him+ Bowever" his name was inadvertentl( left out b(Dean 0eonen>s staff in the reformattin' of the si'nin' pa'es in Restorin' Inte'rit( II+ 5he dean assumed that his name was still inluded in thereformatted si'nin' pa'es" and so mentioned in his over note to Chief .ustie Corona that 3 members of the law fault( si'ned %the ori'inal 37 plus.ustie /endo6a+&!

Dean 0eonen ar'ues that he should not be deemed to have submitted a dumm( of the Statement that was not a true and faithful reprodution of thesame+ Be emphasi6ed that the main bod( of the Statement was unhan'ed in all its three versions and onl( the si'nature pa'es were not the same+5his purportedl( is merel( refletive of Jthe Statement>sK essential nature as a Llive> publi manifesto meant to ontinuousl( draw adherents to itsmessa'e" its si'nator( portion is neessaril( evolvin' and d(nami 2 2 2 man( other printin's of Jthe StatementK ma( be made in the future" eah onerefletin' the same te2t but with more and more si'natories+!7 ,dvertin' to riminal law b( analo'(" Dean 0eonen laims that this is not an instanewhere it has been made to appear in a doument that a person has partiipated in an at when the latter did not in fat so partiipate! for he did not































misrepresent whih members of the fault( of the 9* Colle'e of 0aw had a'reed with the Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement proper and4or had e2pressedtheir desire to be si'natories thereto+!!

In this re'ard" Dean 0eonen believes that he had not ommitted an( violation of Canon 1$ or Rules 1$+$1 and 1$+$# for he did not mislead normisrepresent to the Court the ontents of the Statement or the identities of the 9* 0aw fault( members who a'reed with" or e2pressed their desire to besi'natories to" the Statement+ Be also asserts that he did not ommit an( violation of Rule 1$+$3 as he oursed Jthe StatementK throu'h the appropriatehannels b( transmittin' the same to Bonorable Chief .ustie Corona for the latter>s information and proper disposition with the hope that its pointswould be dul( onsidered b( the Bonorable Court en ban+1$$ Citin' Rudeon /ana'ement Corporation v+ Camaho"1$1 Dean 0eonen posits that thereuired uantum of proof has not been met in this ase and that no dubious harater or motivation for the at omplained of e2isted to warrant anadministrative santion for violation of the standard of honest( provided for b( the Code of *rofessional Responsibilit(+1$#

Dean 0eonen ends his Compliane with an enumeration of nearl( idential reliefs as the Common Compliane" inludin' the pra(ers for a hearin' andfor aess to the reords" evidene and witnesses alle'edl( relevant not onl( in this ase but also in ,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC" the ethial investi'ationinvolvin' .ustie Del Castillo+

/anifestation of *rof+ Owen 0(nh %0(nh /anifestation&

For his part" *rof+ Owen 0(nh %*rof+ 0(nh& manifests to this Court that he is not a member of the *hilippine bar; but he is a member of the bar of theState of /innesota+ Be alle'es that he first tau'ht as a visitin' professor at the 9* Colle'e of 0aw in 1!1 to 1! and returned in the same apait( in#$1$+ Be further alle'es that JhKe subsribes to the priniple" espoused b( this Court and the Supreme Court of the 9nited States" that LJdKebate onpubli issues should be uninhibited" robust and wide open and that it ma( well inlude vehement" austi" and sometimes unpleasantl( sharp atta-s on'overnment and publi offiials+1$3 In si'nin' the Statement" he believes that the ri'ht to spea- means the ri'ht to spea- effetivel(+1$ Citin' thedissentin' opinions in /anila *ubli Shool 5eahers ,ssoiation v+ 0a'uio" .r+"1$= *rof+ 0(nh ar'ued that JfKor speeh to be effetive" it must be forefuenou'h to ma-e the intended reipients listen1$ and JtKhe ualit( of eduation would deteriorate in an atmosphere of repression" when the ver(teahers who are supposed to provide an e2ample of oura'e and self:assertiveness to their pupils an spea- onl( in timorous whispers+1$7 Rel(in' onthe dotrine in In the /atter of *etition for Delarator( Relief Re Constitutionalit( of Republi ,t $" Aon6ales v+ Commission on Eletions"1$ *rof+0(nh believed that the Statement did not pose an( dan'er" lear or present" of an( substantive evil so as to remove it from the protetive mantle of the

)ill of Ri'hts %i+e+" referrin' to the onstitutional 'uarantee on free speeh&+1$! Be also stated that he has read the Compliane of the other respondentsto the Show Cause Resolution and that he si'ned the Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement for the same reasons the( did+ 11$

ISS9ES

)ased on the Show Cause Resolution and a perusal of the submissions of respondents" the material issues to be resolved in this ase are as follows

1+& Does the Show Cause Resolution den( respondents their freedom of e2pressionP

#+& Does the Show Cause Resolution violate respondents> aademi freedom as law professorsP

3+& Do the submissions of respondents satisfatoril( e2plain wh( the( should not be disiplined as /embers of the )ar under Canons 1" 11"and 13 and Rules 1+$# and 11+$= of the Code of *rofessional Responsibilit(P

+& Does the separate Compliane of Dean 0eonen satisfatoril( e2plain wh( he should not be disiplined as a /ember of the )ar underCanon 1$" Rules 1$+$1" 1$+$# and 1$+$3P

=+& ,re respondents entitled to have the Show Cause Resolution set for hearin' and in relation to suh hearin'" are respondents entitled toreuire the prodution or presentation of evidene bearin' on the pla'iarism and misrepresentation issues in the ?inu(a ase %A+R+ No+1##3$& and the ethis ase a'ainst .ustie Del Castillo %,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC& and to have aess to the reords and transripts of" and thewitnesses and evidene presented" or ould have been presented" in the ethis ase a'ainst .ustie Del Castillo %,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC&P

DISC9SSION

5he Show Cause Resolution does not den( respondents their freedom of e2pression+

It is respondents> olletive laim that the Court" with the issuane of the Show Cause Resolution" has interfered with respondents> onstitutionall(mandated ri'ht to free speeh and e2pression+ It appears that the underl(in' assumption behind respondents> assertion is the misoneption that this

Court is den(in' them the ri'ht to ritii6e the Court>s deisions and ations" and that this Court see-s to silene respondent law professors> dissentin'view on what the( harateri6e as a le'itimate publi issue+

5his is far from the truth+ , readin' of the Show Cause Resolution will plainl( show that it was neither the fat that respondents had ritii6ed a deisionof the Court nor that the( had har'ed one of its members of pla'iarism that motivated the said Resolution+ It was the manner of the ritiism and theontumaious lan'ua'e b( whih respondents" who are not parties nor ounsels in the Vinuya ase" have e2pressed their opinion in favor of thepetitioners in the said pendin' ase for the proper disposition and onsideration of the Court that 'ave rise to said Resolution+ 5he Show CauseResolution painsta-in'l( enumerated the statements that the Court onsidered e2essive and unalled for under the irumstanes surroundin' theissuane" publiation" and later submission to this Court of the 9* 0aw fault(>s Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement+

5o reiterate" it was not the irumstane that respondents e2pressed a belief that .ustie Del Castillo was 'uilt( of pla'iarism but rather their e2pressionof that belief as not onl( as an established fat" but a truth111 when it was JoKf publi -nowled'e Jthat there wasK an on'oin' investi'ation preisel( todetermine the truth of suh alle'ations+11# It was also pointed out in the Show Cause Resolution that there was a pendin' motion for reonsideration ofthe ?inu(a deision+113 5he Show Cause Resolution made no ob<etions to the portions of the Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement that respondents laimed to














































be onstrutive but onl( as-ed respondents to e2plain those portions of the said Statement that b( no streth of the ima'ination ould be onsidered asfair or onstrutive" to wit

)e(ond this" however" the statement bore ertain remar-s whih raise onern for the Cour t+ 5he openin' sentene alone is a 'rim preamble to theinstitutional atta- that la( ahead+ It reads

,n e2traordinar( at of in<ustie has a'ain been ommitted a'ainst the brave Filipinas who had suffered abuse durin' a time of war+

5he first para'raph onludes with a referene to the deision in ?inu(a v+ E2eutive Seretar( as a reprehensible at of dishonest( andmisrepresentation b( the Bi'hest Court of the land+ 2 2 2+

5he insult to the members of the Court was a''ravated b( imputations of deliberatel( dela(in' the resolutio n of the said ase" its dismissal on the basisof polluted soures" the Court>s alle'ed indifferene to the ause of petitioners Jin the ?inu(a aseK" as well as the supposed alarmin' la- of onernof the members of the Court for even the most basi values of deen( and respet+11 2 2 2+ %9ndersorin' ours+&

5o be sure" the Show Cause Resolution itself reo'ni6ed respondents> freedom of e2pression when i t stated that

hile most a'ree that the ri'ht to ritii6e the <udiiar( is ritial to maintainin' a free and demorati soiet(" there is also a 'eneral onsensus thathealth( ritiism onl( 'oes so far+ /an( t(pes of ritiism leveled at the <udiiar( ross the line to beome harmful and irresponsible atta-s+ 5hesepotentiall( devastatin' atta-s and un<ust ritiism an threaten the independene of the <udiiar(+ 5he ourt must insist on bein' permitted to proeedto the disposition of its business in an orderl( manner" free from outside interferene obstrutive of its funtions and tendin' to embarrass theadministration of <ustie+

5he Court ould hardl( pereive an( reasonable purpose for the fault(>s less than ob<etive omments e2ept to disredit the ,pril #" #$1$ Deision inthe ?inu(a ase and undermine the Court>s honest(" inte'rit( and ompetene in addressin' the motion for its reonsideration+ ,s if the ase on the

omfort women>s laims is not ontroversial enou'h" the 9* 0aw fault( would fan the flames and invite resentment a'ainst a resolution that would notreverse the said deision+ 5his runs ontrar( to their obli'ation as law professors and offiers of the Court to be the first to uphold the di'nit( andauthorit( of this Court" to whih the( owe fidelit( aordin' to the oath the( have ta-en as attorne(s" and not to promote distrust in the administration of

<ustie+ 11= 2 2 2+ %Citations omitted; emphases and undersorin' supplied+&

Indeed" in a lon' line of ases" inludin' those ited in respondents> submissions" this Court has held that the ri'ht to ritii6e the ourts and <udiialoffiers must be balaned a'ainst the euall( primordial onern that the independene of the .udiiar( be proteted from due influene or interferene+In ases where the ritis are not onl( iti6ens but members of the )ar" <urisprudene has repeatedl( affirmed the authorit( of this Court to disiplinelaw(ers whose statements re'ardin' the ourts and fellow law(ers" whether <udiial or e2tra<udiial" have e2eeded the limits of fair omment andommon deen(+

,s earl( as the 1!3= ase of Saledo v+ Bernande6"11 the Court found ,tt(+ ?iente .+ Franiso both 'uilt( of ontempt and liable administrativel( forthe followin' para'raph in his seond motion for reonsideration

e should li-e fran-l( and respetfull( to ma-e i t of reord that the resolution of this ourt" den(in' our motion for reonsideration" is absolutel(

erroneous and onstitutes an outra'e to the ri'hts of the petitioner Felipe Saledo and a mo-er( of the popular will e2pressed at the polls in themuniipalit( of 5iaon'" 5a(abas+ e wish to e2haust all the means within our power in order that this error ma( be orreted b( the ver( ourt whih hasommitted it" beause we should not want that some iti6en" partiularl( some voter of the muniipalit( of 5iaon'" 5a(abas" resort to the press publil( todenoune" as he has a ri'ht to do" the <udiial outra'e of whih the herein petitioner has been the vitim" and beause it is our utmost desire tosafe'uard the presti'e of this honorable ourt and of eah and ever( member thereof in the e(es of the publi+ )ut" at the same time we wish to statesinerel( that erroneous deisions li-e these" whih the affeted part( and his thousands of voters will neessaril( onsider un<ust" inrease theprosel(tes of Qsa-dalismQ and ma-e the publi lose onfidene in the administration of <ustie+117 %Emphases supplied+&

5he hi'hli'hted phrases were onsidered b( the Court as neither <ustified nor neessar( and further held that

JIKn order to all the attention of the ourt in a speial wa( to the essential points relied upon in his ar'ument and to emphasi6e the fore thereof" theman( reasons stated in his said motion were suffiient and the phrases in uestion were superfluous+ In order to appeal to reason and <ustie" it is hi'hl(improper and amiss to ma-e trouble and resort to threats" as ,ttorne( ?iente .+ Franiso has done" beause both means are anno(in' and 'oodpratie an never santion them b( reason of their natural tenden( to disturb and hinder the free e2erise of a serene and impartial <ud'ment"partiularl( in <udiial matters" in the onsideration of uestions submitted for resolution+

5here is no uestion that said para'raph of ,ttorne( ?iente .+ FranisoQs motion ontains a more or less veiled threat to the ourt beause it isinsinuated therein" after the author shows the ourse whih the voters of 5iaon' should follow in ase he fails in his attempt" that the( will resort to thepress for the purpose of denounin'" what he laims to be a <udiial outra'e of whih his lient has been the vitim; and beause he states in athreatenin' manner with the intention of predisposin' the mind of the reader a'ainst the ourt" thus reatin' an atmosphere of pre<udies a'ainst it inorder to ma-e it odious in the publi e(e" that deisions of the nature of that referred to in his motion promote distrust in the administration of <ustie andinrease the prosel(tes of sakdalism" a movement with seditious and revolutionar( tendenies the ativities of whih" as is of publi -nowled'e" ourredin this ountr( a few da(s a'o+ 5his annot mean otherwise than ontempt of the di'nit( of the ourt and disrespet of the authorit( thereof on the part of

,ttorne( ?iente .+ Franiso" beause he presumes that the ourt is so devoid of the sense of <ustie that" if he did not resort to intimidation" it wouldmaintain its error notwithstandin' the fat that it ma( be proven" with 'ood reasons" that it has ated erroneousl(+11 %Emphases supplied+&

Si'nifiantl(" Saledo is the deision from whih respondents ulled their uote from the /or/ view of .ustie /alolm+ /oreover" Saledoonerned statements made in a pleadin' filed b( a ounsel in a ase" unli-e the respondents here" who are neither parties nor ounsels in the Vinuya ase and therefore" do not have an( standin' at all to interfere in the Vinuya ase+ Instead of supportin' respondents> theor(" Saledo is authorit( for thefollowin' priniple


















,s a member of the bar and an offier of this ourt" ,ttorne( ?iente .+ Franiso" as an( attorne(" is in dut( bound to uphold its di'nit( and authorit( andto defend its inte'rit(" not onl( beause it has onferred upon him the hi'h privile'e" not a ri'ht %/alolm" 0e'al Ethis" 1= and 1$&" o3 5/6 7ha h5o7 /: a 9r/5 o3 ;/c5 %In re Thatcher " $ Ohio St+ Rep+" !#" !&" but also beause in so doin'" he neither reates nor promotes distrust in theadministration of <ustie" and prevents an(bod( from harborin' and enoura'in' disontent whih" in man( ases" is the soure of disorder" thusunderminin' the foundation upon whih rests that bulwar- alled <udiial power to whih those who are a''rieved turn for protetion and relief+11! %Emphases supplied+&

5hus" the law(er in Saledo was fined and r59r/a<5< for his in<udiious statements in his pleadin'" b( ausin' the Court of erroneous rulin'+ Berethe respondents> Statement 'oes wa( be(ond merel( asribin' error to the Court+

Other ases ited b( respondents li-ewise espouse rulin's ontrar( to their position+ In re ,tt(+ ?iente Raul ,lmaen"1#$ ited in the Common

Compliane and the ?asue6 Compliane" was an instane where the Court /<53//5= ;95<5< a member of the )ar for filin' and releasin' to thepress a *etition to Surrender 0aw(er>s Certifiate of 5itle in protest of what he laimed was a 'reat in<ustie to his lient ommitted b( the SupremeCourt+ In the deision" the petition was desribed" thus

Be indits this Court" in his own phrase" as a tribunal peopled b( men who are alloused to our pleas for <ustie" who i'nore without reasons their ownappliable deisions and ommit ulpable violations of the Constitution with impunit(+ Bis lientQs he ontinues" who was deepl( a''rieved b( thisCourtQs un<ust <ud'ment" has beome one of the sarifiial vitims before the altar of h(poris(+ In the same breath that he alludes to the lassis(mbol of <ustie" he ridiules the members of this Court" sa(in' that <ustie as administered b( the present members of the Supreme Court is not onl(blind" but also deaf and dumb+ Be then vows to ar'ue the ause of his lient in the peopleQs forum" so that the people ma( -now of the silentin<usties ommitted b( this Court" and that whatever mista-es" wron's and in<usties that were ommitted must never be repeated+ Be ends hispetition with a pra(er that

2 2 2 a resolution issue orderin' the Cler- of Court to reeive the ertifiate of the undersi'ned attorne( and ounsellor:at:law IN 5R9S5 withreservation that at an( time in the future and in the event we re'ain our faith and onfidene" we ma( retrieve our title to assume the pratie of thenoblest profession+1#1

It is true that in ,lmaen the Court e2tensivel( disussed forei'n <urisprudene on the priniple that a law(er" <ust li-e an( iti6en" has the ri'ht to ritii6eand omment upon atuations of publi offiers" inludin' <udiial authorit(+ Bo75>5r, h5 r5a= <ocr/5 / A=ac5 / ha ;ch cr//c/ o3 h5co;r, 7h5h5r <o5 / co;r or o;/<5 o3 /, ; co3or o a<ar< o3 3a/r5 a< 9ro9r/5. 5his ase en'a'ed in an even moree2tensive disussion of the le'al authorities sustainin' this view+1awphi1 5o uote from that deision

)ut it is the ardinal ondition of all suh ritiism that it shall be bona fide" and shall not spill over the walls of deen( and propriet(+ , wide hasme2ists between fair ritiism" on the one hand" and abuse and slander of ourts and the <ud'es thereof" on the other+ Intemperate and unfair ritiism is a'ross violation of the dut( of respet to ourts+ It is suh a misondut that sub<ets a law(er to disiplinar( ation+

For" membership in the )ar imposes upon a person obli'ations and duties whih are not mere flu2 and ferment+ Bis investiture into the le'al professionplaes upon his shoulders no burden more basi" more e2atin' and more imperative than that of respetful behavior toward the ourts+ Be vowssolemnl( to ondut himself with all 'ood fidelit( 2 2 2 to the ourts; and the Rules of Court onstantl( remind him to observe and maintain the respetdue to ourts of <ustie and <udiial offiers+ 5he first anon of le'al ethis en<oins him to maintain towards the ourts a respetful attitude" not for thesa-e of the temporar( inumbent of the <udiial offie" but for the maintenane of its supreme importane+

,s /r+ .ustie Field puts it

2 2 2 the obli'ation whih attorne(s impliedl( assume" if the( do not b( e2press delaration ta-e upon themselves" when the( are admitted to the )ar" isnot merel( to be obedient to the Constitution and laws" but to maintain at all times the respet due to ourts of <ustie and <udiial offiers+ 5his obli'ationis not dishar'ed b( merel( observin' the rules of ourteous demeanor in open ourt" but inludes abstainin' out of ourt from all insultin' lan'ua'e andoffensive ondut toward <ud'es personall( for their <udiial ats+ %)radle(" v+ Fisher" #$ 0aw+ d+ 7" =#&

5he law(erQs dut( to render respetful subordination to the ourts is essential to the orderl( administration of <ustie+ Bene" in the assertion of theirlientsQ ri'hts" law(ers 8 even those 'ifted with superior intellet 8 are en<oined to rein up their tempers+

5he ounsel in an( ase ma( or ma( not be an abler or more learned law(er than the <ud'e" and it ma( ta2 his patiene and temper to submit to rulin'swhih he re'ards as inorret" but disipline and self:respet are as neessar( to the orderl( administration of <ustie as the( are to the effetiveness ofan arm(+ 5he deisions of the <ud'e must be obe(ed" beause he is the tribunal appointed to deide" and the bar should at all times be the foremost inrenderin' respetful submission+ %In Re Scouten" $ ,tl+ 1&

2 2 2 2

In his relations with the ourts" a law(er ma( not divide his personalit( so as to be an attorne( at one time and a mere iti6en at another+ 5hus"statements made b( an attorne( in private onversations or ommuniations or in the ourse of a politial ampai'n" if ouhed in insultin' lan'ua'e asto brin' into sorn and disrepute the administration of <ustie" ma( sub<et the attorne( to disiplinar( ation+1## %Emphases and undersorin' supplied+&

In a similar vein" In re ?iente Sotto"1#3 ited in the ?asue6 Compliane" observed that

J5Khis Court" in In re @ell(" held the followin'

5he publiation of a ritiism of a part( or of the ourt to a pendin' ause" respetin' the same" has alwa(s been onsidered as misbehavior" tendin' toobstrut the administration of <ustie" and sub<ets suh persons to ontempt proeedin's+ *arties have a onstitutional ri'ht to have their auses tried

















fairl( in ourt" b( an impartial tribunal" uninfluened b( publiations or publi lamor+ Ever( iti6en has a profound personal interest in the enforement ofthe fundamental ri'ht to have <ustie administered b( the ourts" under the protetion and forms of law" free from outside oerion or interferene+ 2 2 2+

/ere ritiism or omment on the orretness or wron'ness" soundness or unsoundness of the deision of the ourt in a pendin' ase made in 'oodfaith ma( be tolerated; beause if well founded it ma( enli'hten the ourt and ontribute to the orretion of an error if ommitted; but if it is not wellta-en and obviousl( erroneous" it should" in no wa(" influene the ourt in reversin' or modif(in' its deision+ 2 2 2+

2 2 2 2

5o hurl the false har'e that this Court has been for the last (ears ommittin' deliberatel( so man( blunders and in<usties" that is to sa(" that it hasbeen deidin' in favor of one part( -nowin' that the law and <ustie is on the part of the adverse part( and not on the one in whose favor the deisionwas rendered" in man( ases deided durin' the last (ears" would tend neessaril( to undermine the onfidene of the people in the honest( andinte'rit( of the members of this Court" and onseuentl( to lower or de'rade the administration of <ustie b( this Court+ 5he Supreme Court of the*hilippines is" under the Constitution" the last bulwar- to whih the Filipino people ma( repair to obtain relief for their 'rievanes or protetion of theirri'hts when these are trampled upon" and if the people lose their onfidene in the honest( and inte'rit( of the members of this Court and believe thatthe( annot e2pet <ustie therefrom" the( mi'ht be driven to ta-e the law into their own hands" and disorder and perhaps haos mi'ht be the result+ ,sa member of the bar and an offier of the ourts ,tt(+ ?iente Sotto" li-e an( other" is in dut( bound to uphold the di'nit( and authorit( of this Court" towhih he owes fidelit( aordin' to the oath he has ta-en as suh attorne(" and not to promote distrust in the administration of <ustie + Respet to theourts 'uarantees the stabilit( of other institutions" whih without suh 'uarant( would be restin' on a ver( sha-( foundation+1# %Emphases andundersorin' supplied+&

5hat the dotrinal pronounements in these earl( ases are still 'ood law an be easil( 'leaned even from more reent <urisprudene+

In Choa v+ Chion'son"1#= the Court administrativel( disiplined a law(er" throu'h the imposition of a fine" for ma-in' maliious and unfounded ritiismsof a <ud'e in the 'uise of an administrative omplaint and held" thus

,s an offier of the ourt and its indispensable partner in the sared tas- of administerin' <ustie" 'raver responsibilit( is imposed upon a law(er thanan( other to uphold the inte'rit( of the ourts and to show respet to its offiers+ 5his does not mean" however" that a law(er annot ritii6e a <ud'e+ ,swe stated in 5ion'o vs+ Bon+ ,'uilar

It does not" however" follow that <ust beause a law(er is an offier of the ourt" he annot ritii6e the ourts+ 5hat is his ri'ht as a iti6en" and it is evenhis dut( as an offier of the ourt to avail of suh ri'ht+ 5hus" in In Re ,lmaen %31 SCR, =#" =7!:=$ J1!7$K&" this Court e2pliitl( delared

Bene" as a iti6en and as offier of the ourt" a law(er is e2peted not onl( to e2erise the ri'ht" but also to onsider it his dut( to avail of suh ri'ht+ Nolaw ma( abrid'e this ri'ht+ Nor is he professionall( answerable to a srutin( into the offiial ondut of the <ud'es" whih would not e2pose him to le'alanimadversion as a iti6en+ %Case of ,ustin" # ,m De+ =7" =&+

2 2 2 2

Nevertheless" suh a ri'ht is not without limit+ For" as this Court warned in ,lmaen

)ut it is a ardinal ondition of all suh ritiism that it shall be bona fide" and shall not spill over the walls of deen( and propriet(+ , wide hasm e2istsbetween fair ritiism" on the one hand" and abuse and slander of ourts and the <ud'es thereof" on the other+ Intemperate and unfair ritiism is a 'rossviolation of the dut( of respet to ourts+ It is suh a misondut" that sub<ets a law(er to disiplinar( ation+

2 2 2 2

Elsewise stated" the ri'ht to ritii6e" whih is 'uaranteed b( the freedom of speeh and of e2pression in the )ill of Ri'hts of the Constitution" must bee2erised responsibl(" for ever( ri'ht arries with it a orrespondin' obli'ation+ Freedom is not freedom from responsibilit(" but freedom withresponsibilit(+ 2 2 2+

2 2 2 2

*rosribed then are" inter alia" the use of unneessar( lan'ua'e whih <eopardi6es hi'h esteem in ourts" reates or promotes distrust in <udiial

administration %Rheem" supra&" or tends neessaril( to undermine the onfidene of people in the inte'rit( of the members of this Court and to de'radethe administration of <ustie b( this Court %In re Sotto" # *hil+ =!= J1!!K&; or of offensive and abusive lan'ua'e %In re Rafael Climao" == SCR, 1$7J1!7K&; or abrasive and offensive lan'ua'e %Han'son vs+ Salandanan" SCR, # J1!7=K; or of disrespetful" offensive" manifestl( baseless" andmaliious statements in pleadin's or in a letter addressed to the <ud'e %)a<a vs+ /aando'" 1= SCR, J1!K" itin' the resolution of 1! .anuar( 1! in*hil+ *ubli Shools 5eahers ,ssoiation vs+ Muisumbin'" A+R+ No+ 71$" and Ceni6a vs+ Sebastian" 13$ SCR, #!= J1!K&; or of dispara'in'"intemperate" and unalled:for remar-s %San'alan' vs+ Intermediate ,ppellate Court" 177 SCR, 7 J1!!K&+

,n( ritiism a'ainst a <ud'e made in the 'uise of an administrative omplaint whih is learl( unfounded and impelled b( ulterior motive will not e2usethe law(er responsible therefor under his dut( of fidelit( to his lient+ 2 2 2+1# %Emphases and undersorin' supplied+&

In Saberon v+ 0aron'"1#7 where this Court found respondent law(er 'uilt( of simple misondut for usin' intemperate lan'ua'e in his pleadin's andimposed a fine upon him" we had the oasion to state

5he Code of *rofessional Responsibilit( mandates














C,NON : , law(er shall ondut himself with ourtes(" fairness and andor toward his professional ollea'ues" and shall avoid harassin' tatisa'ainst opposin' ounsel+

Rule +$1 : , law(er shall not" in his professional dealin's" use lan'ua'e whih is abusive" offensive or otherwise improper+

CANON 11 - A =a75r ha== o5r>5 a< a/a/ h5 r595c <;5 o h5 co;r a< o ;</c/a= o33/c5r a< ho;=< // o //=ar co<;c oh5r.

R;=5 11.0? - A =a75r ha== aa/ 3ro ca<a=o;, o335/>5 or 5ac/6 =a6;a65 or 5ha>/or 53or5 h5 Co;r.

5o be sure" the adversarial nature of our le'al s(stem has tempted members of the bar to use stron' lan'ua'e in pursuit of their dut( to advane theinterests of their lients+

Ho75>5r, 7h/=5 a =a75r / 5/=5< o 9r55 h/ ca5 7/h >/6or a< co;ra65, ;ch 5h;/a <o5 o ;/3 h5 ;5 o3 o335/>5 a<a;/>5 =a6;a65. La6;a65 ao;< 7/h co;=5 9o//=//5 3or o5 o 5 59ha/c ; r595c3;=, co>/c/6 ; o <5ro6aor,/==;/a/6 ; o o335/>5.

O a occa/o, h5 Co;r ha r5/<5< 55r o3 h5 $ar o aa/ 3ro a== o335/>5 95roa=/ and to advane no fat pre<udiial tothe honor or reputation of a part( or witness" unless reuired b( the <ustie of the ause with whih he is har'ed+ In -eepin' with the di'nit( of the le'alprofession" a law(er>s lan'ua'e even in his pleadin's must be di'nified+1#

?eril(" the ausator( and vilif(in' nature of ertain portions of the Statement e2eeded the limits of fair omment and annot be deemed as protetedfree speeh+ Even In the /atter of *etition for Delarator( Relief Re Constitutionalit( of Republi ,t $" Aon6ales v+ Commission on Eletions"1#! relied upon b( respondents in the Common Compliane" held that

From the lan'ua'e of the speifi onstitutional provision" it would appear that the ri'ht is not suseptible of an( limitation+ No law ma( be passedabrid'in' the freedom of speeh and of the press+ 5he realities of life in a omple2 soiet( prelude however a literal interpretation+ Freedom ofe2pression is not an absolute+ It would be too muh to insist that at all times and under all irumstanes it should remain unfettered and unrestrained+5here are other soietal values that press for reo'nition+ 2 2 2+13$ %Emphasis supplied+&

One suh soietal value that presses for reo'nition in the ase at bar is the threat to <udiial independene and the orderl( administration of <ustie thatimmoderate" re-less and unfair atta-s on <udiial deisions and institutions pose+ 5his Court held as muh in aldivar v+ Sandi'anba(an andAon6ales"131 where we /<53//5= ;95<5< a law(er from the pratie of law for issuin' to the media statements 'rossl( disrespetful towards theCourt in relation to a pendin' ase" to wit

Respondent Aon6ales is entitled to the onstitutional 'uarantee of free speeh+ No one see-s to den( him that ri'ht" least of all this Court+ hatrespondent seems unaware of is that freedom of speeh and of e2pression" li-e all onstitutional freedoms" is not absolute and that freedom ofe2pression needs on oasion to be ad<usted to and aommodated with the reuirements of euall( important publi interest+ One of thesefundamental publi interests is the maintenane of the inte'rit( and orderl( funtionin' of the administration of <ustie+ 5here is no antinom( betweenfree e2pression and the inte'rit( of the s(stem of administerin' <ustie+ For the protetion and maintenane of freedom of e2pression itself an be

seured onl( within the onte2t of a funtionin' and orderl( s(stem of dispensin' <ustie" within the onte2t" in other words" of viable independentinstitutions for deliver( of <ustie whih are aepted b( the 'eneral ommunit(+ 2 2 2+13# %Emphases supplied+&

For this reason" the Court cannot uphold the view of some respondents133 that the Statement presents no grave or imminent danger to alegitimate public interest.

5he Show Cause Resolution does not interfere with respondents> aademi freedom+

It is not ontested that respondents herein are" b( law and <urisprudene" 'uaranteed aademi freedom and undisputabl(" the( are free to determinewhat the( will teah their students and how the( will teah+ e must point out that there is nothin' in the Show Cause Resolution that ditates uponrespondents the sub<et matter the( an teah and the manner of their instrution+ /oreover" it is not inonsistent with the priniple of aademi freedomfor this Court to sub<et law(ers who teah law to disiplinar( ation for ontumaious ondut and speeh" oupled with undue intervention in favor of apart( in a pendin' ase" without observin' proper proedure" even if purportedl( done in their apait( as teahers+

, novel issue involved in the present ontrovers(" for it has not been passed upon in an( previous ase before this Court" is the uestion of whether

law(ers who are also law professors an invo-e aademi freedom as a defense in an administrative proeedin' for intemperate statements tendin' topressure the Court or influene the outome of a ase or de'rade the ourts+

,ppl(in' b( analo'( the Court>s past treatment of the free speeh defense in other bar disipline ases" aademi freedom annot be suessfull(invo-ed b( respondents in this ase+ 5he impliit rulin' in the <urisprudene disussed above is that the onstitutional ri'ht to freedom of e2pression ofmembers of the )ar ma( be irumsribed b( their ethial duties as law(ers to 'ive due respet to the ourts and to uphold the publi>s faith in the le'alprofession and the <ustie s(stem+ 5o our mind" the reason that freedom of e2pression ma( be so delimited in the ase of law(ers applies with 'reaterfore to the aademi freedom of law professors+

It would do well for the Court to remind respondents that" in view of the broad definition in Ca(etano v+ /onsod"13 law(ers when the( teah law areonsidered en'a'ed in the pratie of law+ 9nli-e professors in other disiplines and more than law(ers who do not teah law" respondents are bound b(their oath to uphold the ethial standards of the le'al profession+ 5hus" their ations as law professors must be measured a'ainst the same anons ofprofessional responsibilit( appliable to ats of members of the )ar as the fat of their bein' law professors is ine2triabl( entwined with the fat thatthe( are law(ers+























Even if the Court was willin' to aept respondents> proposition in the Common Compliane that their issuane of the Statement was in -eepin' withtheir dut( to partiipate in the development of the le'al s(stem b( initiatin' or supportin' efforts in law reform and in the improvement of theadministration of <ustie under Canon of the Code of *rofessional Responsibilit(" we annot a'ree that the( have fulfilled that same dut( in -eepin'with the demands of Canons 1" 11 and 13 to 'ive due respet to le'al proesses and the ourts" and to avoid ondut that tends to influene the ourts+/embers of the )ar annot be seletive re'ardin' whih anons to abide b( 'iven partiular situations+ ith more reason that law professors are notallowed this indul'ene" sine the( are e2peted to provide their students e2emplars of the Code of *rofessional Responsibilit( as a whole and not <usttheir preferred portions thereof+

The Court’s rulings on the submissions regarding the charge of violation of Canons 1, 11 and 13.

Bavin' disposed of respondents> main ar'uments of freedom of e2pression and aademi freedom" the Court onsiders here the other averments in

their submissions+

ith respet to 'ood faith" respondents> alle'ations presented two main ideas %a& the validit( of their position re'ardin' the pla'iarism har'e a'ainst.ustie Del Castillo" and %b& their pure motive to spur this Court to ta-e the orret ation on said issue+

5he Court has alread( larified that it is not the e2pression of respondents> staunh belief that .ustie Del Castillo has ommitted a misondut that thema<orit( of this Court has found so unbeomin' in the Show Cause Resolution+ No matter how firm a law(er>s onvition in the ri'hteousness of hisause there is simpl( no e2use for deni'ratin' the ourts and en'a'in' in publi behavior that tends to put the ourts and the le'al profession intodisrepute+ 5his dotrine" whih we have repeatedl( upheld in suh ases as Saledo" In re ,lmaen and Saberon'" should be applied in this ase withmore reason" as the respondents" not parties to the Vinuya ase" denouned the Court and ur'ed it to han'e i ts deision therein" in a publi statementusin' ontumaious lan'ua'e" whih with temerit( the( subseuentl( submitted to the Court for proper disposition+

5hat humiliatin' the Court into reonsiderin' the ?inu(a Deision in favor of the /ala(a 0olas was one of the ob<etives of the Statement ould be seenin the followin' para'raphs from the same

,nd in li'ht of the si'nifiane of this deision to the uest for <ustie not onl( of Filipino women" but of women elsewhere in the world who have sufferedthe horrors of se2ual abuse and e2ploitation in times of war" the Court annot oldl( den( relief and <ustie to the petitioners on the basis of pilfered andmisinterpreted te2ts+

2 2 2 2

%3& 5he same breah and onseuent disposition of the Vinuya ase does violene to the primordial funtion of the Supreme Court as the ultimatedispenser of <ustie to all those who have been left without le'al or euitable reourse" suh as the petitioners therein+ 13= %Emphases and undersorin'supplied+&

hether or not respondents> views re'ardin' the pla'iarism issue in the Vinuya ase had valid basis was wholl( immaterial to their liabilit( forontumaious speeh and ondut+ 5hese are two separate matters to be properl( threshed out in separate proeedin's+ 5he Court onsiders it hi'hl(inappropriate" if not tantamount to dissemblin'" the disussion devoted in one of the omplianes ar'uin' the 'uilt of .ustie Del Castillo+ In theCommon Compliane" respondents even 'o so far as to attah doumentar( evidene to support the pla'iarism har'es a'ainst .ustie Del Castillo inthe present ontrovers(+ 5he ethis ase of .ustie Del Castillo %,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC&" with the filin' of a motion for reonsideration" was still pendin' at

the time of the filin' of respondents> submissions in this administrative ase+ ,s respondents themselves admit" the( are neither parties nor ounsels inthe ethis ase a'ainst .ustie Del Castillo+ Notwithstandin' their professed overridin' interest in said ethis ase" it is not proper proedure forrespondents to brin' up their pla'iarism ar'uments here espeiall( when it has no bearin' on their own administrative ase+

Still on motive" it is also proposed that the hoie of lan'ua'e in the Statement was intended for effetive speeh; that speeh must be foreful enou'hto ma-e the intended reipients listen+13 One wonders what sort of effet respondents were hopin' for in brandin' this Court as" amon' others" allous"dishonest and la-in' in onern for the basi values of deen( and respet+ 5he Court fails to see how it an ennoble the profession if we allowrespondents to send a si'nal to their students that the onl( wa( to effetivel( plead their ases and persuade others to their point of view is to beoffensive+

5his brin's to our mind the letters of Dr+ Ellis and *rof+ 5ams whih were deliberatel( uoted in full in the narration of ba-'round fats to illustrate thesharp ontrast between the ivil tenor of these letters and the anta'onisti irreverene of the Statement+ In truth" these forei'n authors are the ones whowould e2petedl( be affeted b( an( pereption of misuse of their wor-s+ Notwithstandin' that the( are be(ond the disiplinar( reah of this Court" the(still obviousl( too- pains to onve( their ob<etions in a deferential and sholarl( manner+ It is unfathomable to the Court wh( respondents ould not dothe same+ 5hese forei'n authors> letters undersore the universalit( of the tenet that le'al professionals must deal with eah other in 'ood faith and due

respet+ 5he mar- of the true intelletual is one who an e2press his opinions lo'iall( and soberl( without resort to e2a''erated rhetori andunprodutive reriminations+

,s for the laim that the respondents> noble intention is to spur the Court to ta-e onstrutive ation on the pla'iarism issue" the Court has somedoubts as to its verait(+ For if the Statement was primaril( meant for this Court>s onsideration" wh( was the same published and reported in the mediafirst before it was submitted to this CourtP It is more plausible that the Statement was prepared for onsumption b( the 'eneral publi and desi'ned toapture media attention as part of the effort to 'enerate interest in the most ontroversial 'round in the Supplemental /otion for Reonsideration filed inthe ?inu(a ase b( ,tt(+ Roue" who is respondents> ollea'ue on the 9* 0aw fault(+

In this re'ard" the Court finds that there was indeed a la- of observane of fidelit( and due respet to the Court" partiularl( when respondents -newfull( well that the matter of pla'iarism in the ?inu(a deision and the merits of the ?inu(a deision itself" at the time of the Statement>s issuane" werestill both sub <udie or pendin' final disposition of the Court+ 5hese fats have been widel( publii6ed+ On this point" respondents alle'e that at the timethe Statement was first drafted on .ul( #7" #$1$" the( did not -now of the onstitution of the Ethis Committee and the( had issued the Statement underthe belief that this Court intended to ta-e no ation on the ethis har'e a'ainst .ustie Del Castillo+ Still" there was a si'nifiant lapse of time from thedraftin' and printin' of the Statement on .ul( #7" #$1$ and its publiation and submission to this Court in earl( ,u'ust when the Ethis Committee had








alread( been onvened+ If it is true that the respondents> outra'e was fueled b( their pereption of indifferene on the part of the Court then" when itbeame -nown that the Court did intend to ta-e ation" there was nothin' to prevent respondents from realibratin' the Statement to ta-e thissupervenin' event into aount in the interest of fairness+

Spea-in' of the publiit( this ase has 'enerated" we li-ewise find no merit in the respondents> reliane on various news reports and ommentaries inthe print media and the internet as proof that the( are bein' unfairl( sin'led out+ On the ontrar(" these same anne2es to the Common Complianeshow that it is not enou'h for one to ritii6e the Court to warrant the institution of disiplinar(137 or ontempt13 ation+ 5his Court ta-es into aount thenature of the ritiism and wei'hs the possible reperussions of the same on the .udiiar(+ hen the ritiism omes from persons outside theprofession who ma( not have a full 'rasp of le'al issues or from individuals whose personal or other interests in ma-in' the ritiism are obvious" theCourt ma( perhaps tolerate or i'nore them+ Bowever" when law professors are the ones who appear to have lost si'ht of the boundaries of fairommentar( and worse" would <ustif( the same as an e2erise of ivil liberties" this Court annot remain silent for suh silene would have a 'raveimpliation on le'al eduation in our ountr(+

ith respet to the 3= respondents named in the Common Compliane" onsiderin' that this appears to be the first time these respondents have beeninvolved in disiplinar( proeedin's of this sort" the Court is willin' to 'ive them the benefit of the doubt that the( were for the most part well:intentionedin the issuane of the Statement+ Bowever" it is established in <urisprudene that where the e2essive and ontumaious lan'ua'e used is plain andundeniable" then 'ood intent an onl( be miti'atin'+ ,s this Court e2pounded in Saledo

In his defense" ,ttorne( ?iente .+ Franiso states that it was not his intention to offend the ourt or to be rereant to the respet thereto but"unfortunatel(" there are his phrases whih need no further omment+ Furthermore" it is a well settled rule in all plaes where the same onditions andpratie as those in this <urisdition obtain" that want of intention is no e2use from liabilit( %13 C+ .+" =&+ Neither is the fat that the phrases emplo(edare <ustified b( the fats a valid defense

here the matter is abusive or insultin'" evidene that the lan'ua'e used was <ustified b( the fats is not admissible as a defense+ Respet for the <udiial offie should alwa(s be observed and enfored+ %In re Stewart " 11 0a+" #7; 3 S+" ==+& Said la- or want of intention onstitutes at most ane2tenuation of liabilit( in this ase" ta-in' into onsideration ,ttorne( ?iente .+ FranisoQs state of mind" aordin' to him when he prepared saidmotion+ 5his ourt is disposed to ma-e suh onession+ Bowever" in order to avoid a reurrene thereof and to prevent others" b( followin' the bad

e2ample" from ta-in' the same ourse" this ourt onsiders it imperative to treat the ase of said attorne( with the <ustie it deserves+13! %Emphasessupplied+&

5hus" the 3= respondents named in the Common Compliane should" notwithstandin' their laim of 'ood faith" be reminded of their law(erl( dut(" underCanons 1" 11 and 13" to 'ive due respet to the ourts and to refrain from intemperate and offensive lan'ua'e tendin' to influene the Court on pendin'matters or to deni'rate the ourts and the administration of <ustie+

ith respet to *rof+ ?asue6" the Court favorabl( notes the differenes in his Compliane ompared to his ollea'ues+ In our view" he was the onl( oneamon' the respondents who showed true andor and sinere deferene to the Court+ Be was able to 'ive a strai'htforward aount of how he ame tosi'n the Statement+ Be was andid enou'h to state that his a'reement to the Statement was in priniple and that the reason pla'iarism was a fair topiof disussion amon' the 9* 0aw fault( prior to the promul'ation of the Otober 1#" #$1$ Deision in ,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC was the unertaint( brou'htabout b( a division of opinion on whether or not willful or deliberate intent was an element of pla'iarism+ Be was li-ewise willin' to a-nowled'e that hema( have been remiss in failin' to assess the effet of the lan'ua'e of the Statement and ould have used more are+ Be did all this without havin' toretrat his position on the pla'iarism issue" without demands for undeserved reliefs %as will be disussed below& and without baseless insinuations ofdeprivation of due proess or of pre<ud'ment+ 5his is all that this Court e2peted from respondents" not for them to sarifie their priniples but onl( that

the( reo'ni6e that the( themselves ma( have ommitted some ethial lapse in this affair+ e ommend *rof+ ?aue6 for showin' that at least one ofthe respondents an 'rasp the true import of the Show Cause Resolution involvin' them+ For these reasons" the Court finds *rof+ ?asue6>s Complianesatisfator(+

,s for *rof+ 0(nh" in view of his /anifestation that he is a member of the )ar of the State of /innesota and" therefore" not under the disiplinar(authorit( of this Court" he should be e2used from these proeedin's+ Bowever" he should be reminded that while he is en'a'ed as a professor in a*hilippine law shool he should strive to be a model of responsible and professional ondut to his students even without the threat of santion from thisCourt+ For even if one is not bound b( the Code of *rofessional Responsibilit( for members of the *hilippine )ar" ivilit( and respet amon' le'alprofessionals of an( nationalit( should be aspired for under universal standards of deen( and fairness+

5he Court>s rulin' on Dean 0eonen>s Compliane re'ardin' the har'e of violation of Canon 1$+

5o reall" the Show Cause Resolution direted Dean 0eonen to show ause wh( he should not be disiplinar( dealt with for violation of Canon 1$" Rules1$+$1" 1$+$# and 1$+$3 and for submittin' a dumm( that was not a true and faithful reprodution of the si'ned Statement+

In his Compliane" Dean 0eonen essentiall( denies that R5or/6 56r/ was not a true and faithful reprodution of the atual si'ned op("R5or/6 56r/ " beause loo-in' at the te2t or the bod(" there were no differenes between the two+ Be attempts to downpla( the disrepanies inthe si'nature pa'es of the two versions of the Statement %i+e+" R5or/6 56r/ and R5or/6 56r/ & b( laimin' that it is but e2peted inlive publi manifestos with d(nami and evolvin' pa'es as more and more si'natories add their imprimatur thereto+ Be li-ewise stresses that he is notadministrativel( liable beause he did not misrepresent the members of the 9* 0aw fault( who ha< a'reed with the Restorin' Inte'rit( Statementproper and4or who had e2pressed their desire to be si'natories thereto+1$

5o be'in with" the Court annot subsribe to Dean 0eonen>s implied view that the si'natures in the Statement are not as si'nifiant as its ontents+ 0ivepubli manifesto or not" the Statement was formall( submitted to this Court at a speifi point in time and it should reflet auratel( its si'natories at thatpoint+ 5he value of the Statement as a 9* 0aw Fault( Statement lies preisel( in the identities of the persons who have si'ned it" sine the Statement>spersuasive authorit( mainl( depends on the reputation and stature of the persons who have endorsed the same+ Indeed" it is apparent from respondentse2planations that their own belief in the importane of their positions as 9* law professors prompted them to publil( spea- out on the matter of thepla'iarism issue in the ?inu(a ase+















Further" in our assessment" the true ause of Dean 0eonen>s prediament is the fat that he did not from the be'innin' submit the si'ned op("Restorin' Inte'rit( I" to this Court on ,u'ust 11" #$1$ and" instead" submitted Restorin' Inte'rit( II with its ret(ped or reformatted si'nature pa'es+ Itwould turn out" aordin' to Dean 0eonen>s aount" that there were errors in the ret(pin' of the si'nature pa'es due to lapses of his unnamed staff+First" an unnamed administrative offier in the dean>s offie 'ave the dean inaurate information that led him to allow the inlusion of .ustie /endo6aas amon' the si'natories of Restorin' Inte'rit( II+ Seond" an unnamed staff also failed to t(pe the name of ,tt(+ ,rmovit when enodin' the si'naturepa'es of Restorin' Inte'rit( II when in fat he had si'ned Restorin' Inte'rit( I+

5he Court an understand wh( for purposes of postin' on a bulletin board or a website a si'ned doument ma( have to be reformatted and si'naturesma( be indiated b( the notation %SAD&+ 5his is not unusual+ e are willin' to aept that the reformattin' of douments meant for postin' to eliminateblan-s is neessitated b( vandalism onerns+

Bowever" what is unusual is the submission to a ourt" espeiall( this Court" of a si'ned doument for the Court>s onsideration that did not ontain theatual si'natures of its authors+ In most ases" it is the ori'inal si'ned doument that is transmitted to the Court or at the ver( least a photoop( of theatual si'ned doument+ Dean 0eonen has not offered an( e2planation wh( he deviated from this pratie with his submission to the Court of Restorin'Inte'rit( II on ,u'ust 11" #$1$+ 5here was nothin' to prevent the dean from submittin' Restorin' Inte'rit( I to this Court even with its blan-s andunsi'ned portions+ Dean 0eonen annot laim fears of vandalism with respet to ourt submissions for ourt emplo(ees are aountable for the are ofdouments and reords that ma( ome into their ustod(+ Het" Dean 0eonen deliberatel( hose to submit to this Court the fasimile that did not ontainthe atual si'natures and his silene on the reason therefor is in itself a displa( of la- of andor+

Still" a areful readin' of Dean 0eonen>s e2planations (ield the answer+ In the ourse of his e2planation of his willin'ness to aept his administrativeoffier>s laim that .ustie /endo6a a'reed to be indiated as a si'nator(" Dean 0eonen admits in a footnote that other professors had li-ewise onl(authori6ed him to indiate them as si'natories and had not in fat si'ned the Statement+ 5hus" at around the time Restorin' Inte'rit( II was printed"posted and submitted to this Court" at least one purported si'nator( thereto had not atuall( si'ned the same+ Contrar( to Dean 0eonen>s proposition"that is preisel( tantamount to ma-in' it appear to this Court that a person or persons partiipated in an at when suh person or persons did not+

e are surprised that someone li-e Dean 0eonen" with his reputation for perfetion and strin'ent standards of intelletual honest(" ould proffer thee2planation that there was no misrepresentation when he allowed at least one person to be indiated as havin' atuall( si'ned the Statement when all

he had was a verbal ommuniation of an intent to si'n+ In the ase of .ustie /endo6a" what he had was onl( hearsa( information that the formerintended to si'n the Statement+ If Dean 0eonen was trul( determined to observe andor and truthfulness in his dealin's with the Court" we see noreason wh( he ould not have waited until all the professors who indiated their desire to si'n the Statement had in fat si'ned before transmittin' theStatement to the Court as a dul( si'ned doument+ If it was trul( impossible to seure some si'natures" suh as that of .ustie /endo6a who had toleave for abroad" then Dean 0eonen should have <ust resi'ned himself to the si'natures that he was able to seure+

e annot ima'ine what ur'ent onern there was that he ould not wait for atual si'natures before submission of the Statement to this Court+ ,srespondents all asserted" the( were neither parties to nor ounsels in the ?inu(a ase and the ethis ase a'ainst .ustie Del Castillo+ 5he Statementwas neither a pleadin' with a deadline nor a reuired submission to the Court; rather" it was a voluntar( submission that Dean 0eonen ould do at an(time+

In sum" the Court li-ewise finds Dean 0eonen>s Compliane unsatisfator(+ Bowever" the Court is willin' to asribe these isolated lapses in <ud'ment ofDean 0eonen to his misplaed 6eal in pursuit of his ob<etives+ In due onsideration of Dean 0eonen>s professed 'ood intentions" the Court deems itsuffiient to admonish Dean 0eonen for failin' to observe full andor and honest( in his dealin's with the Court as reuired under Canon 1$+

Respondents> reuests for a hearin'" for prodution4presentation of evidene bearin' on the pla'iarism and misrepresentation issues in A+R+ No+1##3$ and ,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC" and for aess to the reords of ,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC are unmeritorious+

In the Common Compliane" respondents named therein as-ed for alternative reliefs should the Court find their Compliane unsatisfator(" that is" thatthe Show Cause Resolution be set for hearin' and for that purpose" the( be allowed to reuire the prodution or presentation of witnesses and evidenebearin' on the pla'iarism and misrepresentation issues in the Vinuya ase %A+R+ No+ 1##3$& and the pla'iarism ase a'ainst .ustie Del Castillo %,+/+No+ 1$:7:17:SC& and to have aess to the reords of" and evidene that were presented or ma( be presented in the ethis ase a'ainst .ustie DelCastillo+ 5he pra(er for a hearin' and for aess to the reords of ,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC was substantiall( ehoed in Dean 0eonen>s separateCompliane+ In *rof+ .uan:)autista>s Compliane" she similarl( e2pressed the sentiment that JiKf the Restorin' Inte'rit( Statement an be onsideredindiret ontempt" under Setion 3 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court" suh ma( be punished onl( after har'e and hearin'+11 It is this 'roup ofrespondents> premise that these reliefs are neessar( for them to be aorded full due proess+

5he Court finds this ontention unmeritorious+

Firstl(" it would appear that the onfusion as to the neessit( of a hearin' in this ase sprin's lar'el( from its harateri6ation as a speial ivil ation for

indiret ontempt in the Dissentin' Opinion of .ustie Sereno %to the Otober 1!" #$1$ Show Cause Resolution& and her reliane therein on thema<orit(>s purported failure to follow the proedure in Rule 71 of the Rules of Court as her main 'round for opposition to the Show Cause Resolution+

Bowever" one and for all" it should be larified that this is not an indiret ontempt proeedin' and Rule 71 %whih reuires a hearin'& has no appliationto this ase+ ,s e2pliitl( ordered in the Show Cause Resolution this ase was do-eted as an administrative matter+

5he rule that is relevant to this ontrovers( is Rule 13!:)" Setion 13" on disiplinar( proeedin's initiated motu proprio b( the Supreme Court" to wit

SEC+ 13+ Supreme ourt Investi!ators.8In proeedin's initiated motu proprio b( the Supreme Court or in other proeedin's when the interest of <ustieso reuires" the Supreme Court a refer the ase for investi'ation to the Soliitor Aeneral or to an( offier of the Supreme Court or <ud'e of a lowerourt" in whih ase the investi'ation shall proeed in the same manner provided in setions to 11 hereof" save that the review of the report ofinvesti'ation shall be onduted diretl( b( the Supreme Court+ %Emphasis supplied+&






From the fore'oin' provision" it annot be denied that a formal investi'ation" throu'h a referral to the speified offiers" is merel( disretionar(" oa<aor on the Court+ Furthermore" it is onl( if the Court deems suh an investi'ation neessar( that the proedure in Setions to 11 of Rule 13!:,will be followed+

,s respondents are full( aware" in 'eneral" administrative proeedin's do not reuire a trial t(pe hearin'+ e have held that

5he essene of due proess is simpl( an opportunit( to be heard or" as applied to administrative proeedin's" an opportunit( to e2plain oneQs side or anopportunit( to see- a reonsideration of the ation or rulin' omplained of+ hat the law prohibits is absolute absene of the opportunit( to be heard"hene" a part( annot fei'n denial of due proess where he had been afforded the opportunit( to present his side+ , formal or trial t(pe hearin' is not atall times and in all instanes essential to due proess" the reuirements of whih are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonableopportunit( to e2plain their side of the ontrovers(+1# %Emphases supplied+&

In relation to bar disipline ases" we have had the oasion to rule in *ena v+ ,pariio13 that

Disiplinar( proeedin's a'ainst law(ers are sui !eneris+ Neither purel( ivil nor purel( riminal" the( do not involve a trial of an ation or a suit" but israther an investi'ation b( the Court into the ondut of one of its offiers+ Not bein' intended to inflit punishment" it is in no sense a riminalproseution+ ,ordin'l(" there is neither a plaintiff nor a proseutor therein+ It ma( be initiated b( the Court motu proprio+ *ubli interest is its primar(ob<etive" and the real uestion for determination is whether or not the attorne( is still a fit person to be allowed the privile'es as suh+ Bene" in thee2erise of its disiplinar( powers" the Court merel( alls upon a member of the )ar to aount for his atuations as an offier of the Court with the endin view of preservin' the purit( of the le'al profession and the proper and honest administration of <ustie b( pur'in' the profession of members who b(their misondut have proved themselves no lon'er worth( to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertainin' to the offie of an attorne(+ Insuh posture" there an thus be no oasion to spea- of a omplainant or a proseutor +1 %Emphases supplied+&

In Muer( of ,tt(+ @aren /+ Silverio:)uffe" Former Cler- of Court G )r+ 1" Romblon G On the *rohibition from En'a'in' in the *rivate *ratie of 0aw"1= we further observed that

JIKn several ases" the Court has disiplined law(ers without further inuir( or resort to an( formal investi'ation where the fats on reord suffiientl(provided the basis for the determination of their administrative liabilit(+

In *rudential )an- v+ Castro" the Court disbarred a law(er without need of an( further investi'ation after onsiderin' his ations based on reordsshowin' his unethial misondut; the misondut not onl( ast dishonor on the ima'e of both the )enh and the )ar" but was also inimial to publiinterest and welfare+ In this re'ard" the Court too- <udiial notie of several ases handled b( the errant law(er and his ohorts that revealed their modusoperandi in irumventin' the pa(ment of the proper <udiial fees for the astronomial sums the( laimed in their ases+ 5he Court held that those asessuffiientl( provided the basis for the determination of respondentsQ administrative liabilit(" without need for further inuir( into the matter under thepriniple of res ipsa lo"uitur +

,lso on the basis of this priniple" we ruled in Rihards v+ ,so(" that no evidentiar( hearin' is reuired before the respondent ma( be disiplined forprofessional misondut alread( established b( the fats on reord+

2 2 2 2

5hese ases learl( show that the absene of an( formal har'e a'ainst and4or formal investi'ation of an errant law(er do not prelude the Court fromimmediatel( e2erisin' its disiplinin' authorit(" as lon' as the errant law(er or <ud'e has been 'iven the opportunit( to be heard+ ,s we stated earlier"

,tt(+ )uffe has been afforded the opportunit( to be heard on the present matter throu'h her letter:uer( and /anifestation filed before this Court+1 %Emphases supplied+&

9nder the rules and <urisprudene" respondents learl( had no ri'ht to a hearin' and their reservation of a ri'ht the( do not have has no effet on theseproeedin's+ Neither have the( shown in their pleadin's an( <ustifiation for this Court to all for a hearin' in this instane+ 5he( have not speifiall(stated what relevant evidene" doumentar( or testimonial" the( intend to present in their defense that will neessitate a formal hearin'+

Instead" it would appear that the( intend to present reords" evidene" and witnesses bearin' on the pla'iarism and misrepresentation issues in theVinuya ase and in ,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC on the assumption that the findin's of this Court whih were the bases of the Show Cause Resolution weremade in ,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC" or were related to the onlusions of the Court in the Deision in that ase+ 5his is the primar( reason for their reuest foraess to the reords and evidene presented in ,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC+

5his assumption on the part of respondents is erroneous+ 5o illustrate" the onl( inident in ,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC that is relevant to the ase at bar is thefat that the submission of the atual si'ned op( of the Statement %or Restorin' Inte'rit( I" as Dean 0eonen referred to it& happened there+ ,part fromthat fat" it bears repeatin' that the proeedin's in ,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC" the ethis ase a'ainst .ustie Del Castillo" is a separate and independentmatter from this ase+

5o find the bases of the statements of the Court in the Show Cause Resolution that the respondents issued a Statement with lan'ua'e that the Courtdeems ob<etionable durin' the penden( of the ?inu(a ase and the ethis ase a'ainst .ustie Del Castillo" respondents need to 'o no further thanthe four orners of the Statement itself" its various versions" news reports4olumns %man( of whih respondents themselves supplied to this Court in theirCommon Compliane& and internet soures that are alread( of publi -nowled'e+

Considerin' that what respondents are hiefl( reuired to e2plain are the lan'ua'e of the Statement and the irumstanes surroundin' the draftin'"printin'" si'nin'" dissemination" etc." of its various versions" the Court does not see how an( witness or evidene in the ethis ase of .ustie DelCastillo ould possibl( shed li'ht on these fats+ 5o be sure" these fats are within the -nowled'e of respondents and if there is an( evidene on thesematters the same would be in their possession+
















e find it si'nifiant that in Dean 0eonen>s Compliane he narrated how as earl( as September #$1$" i+e+" before the Deision of this Court in the ethisase of .ustie Del Castillo on Otober 1#" #$1$ and before the Otober 1!" #$1$ Show Cause Resolution" retired Supreme Court .ustie ?iente ?+/endo6a" after bein' shown a op( of the Statement upon his return from abroad" predited that the Court would ta-e some form of ation on theStatement+ )( simpl( readin' a hard op( of the Statement" a reasonable person" even one who fundamentall( a'reed with the Statement>s priniplesould foresee the possibilit( of ourt ation on the same on an impliit reo'nition that the Statement" as worded" is not a matter this Court should simpl(let pass+ 5his belies respondents> laim that it is neessar( for them to refer to an( reord or evidene in ,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC in order to divine thebases for the Show Cause Resolution+

If respondents have hosen not to inlude ertain piees of evidene in their respetive omplianes or hosen not to ma-e a full defense at this time"beause the( were ountin' on bein' 'ranted a hearin'" that is respondents> own loo-:out+ Indeed" law professors of their stature are supposed to beaware of the above <urisprudential dotrines re'ardin' the non:neessit( of a hearin' in disiplinar( ases+ 5he( should bear the onseuene of the ris-the( have ta-en+

5hus" respondents> reuests for a hearin' and for aess to the reords of" and evidene presented in" ,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC should be denied for la- ofmerit+

A 3/a= 7or<

In a demora(" members of the le'al ommunit( are hardl( e2peted to have monolithi views on an( sub<et" be it a le'al" politial or soial issue+Even as law(ers passionatel( and vi'orousl( propound their points of view the( are bound b( ertain rules of ondut for the le'al profession+ 5his Courtis ertainl( not laimin' that it should be shielded from ritiism+ ,ll the Court demands is the same respet and ourtes( that one law(er owes toanother under established ethial standards+ ,ll law(ers" whether the( are <ud'es" ourt emplo(ees" professors or private pratitioners" are offiers of theCourt and have voluntaril( ta-en an oath" as an indispensable ualifiation for admission to the )ar" to ondut themselves with 'ood fidelit( towards theourts+ 5here is no e2emption from this sworn dut( for law professors" re'ardless of their status in the aademi ommunit( or the law shool to whihthe( belon'+

BEREFORE" this administrative matter is deided as follows

%1& ith respet to *rof+ ?asue6" after favorabl( notin' his submission" the Court finds his Compliane to be satisfator(+

%#& 5he Common Compliane of 3= respondents" namel(" ,tt(s+ /arvi /+?+F+ 0eonen" Froilan /+ )aun'an" *aifio ,+ ,'abin" /erlin /+/a'allona" Salvador 5+ Carlota" Carmelo ?+ Sison" *atriia R+*+ Salvador Dawa(" Dante )+ Aatma(tan" 5heodore O+ 5e" Florin 5+ Bilba(" .a( 0+)aton'baal" Evel(n %0eo& D+ )attad" Awen A+ De ?era" Solomon F+ 0umba" Rommel .+ Casis" .ose Aerardo ,+ ,lampa(" /i'uel R+ ,rmovit"

,rthur *+ ,utea" Rosa /aria .+ )autista" /ar- R+ )oobo" Dan *+ Calia" 5ristan ,+ Catindi'" Sandra /arie O+ Coronel" Rosario O+ Aallo"Conepion 0+ .ardele6a" ,ntonio A+/+ 0a ?ia" Carina C+ 0aforte6a" .ose C+ 0aureta" Rodolfo Noel S+ Muimbo" ,ntonio /+ Santos" AmeleenFa(e )+ 5ombo" Niholas Feli2 0+ 5(" Eval(n A+ 9rsua" Susan D+ ?illanueva and Dina D+ 0uenario" is found 9NS,5ISF,C5ORH+ 5hese 3=respondent law professors are reminded of their law(erl( dut(" under Canons 1" 11 and 13 of the Code of *rofessional Responsibilit(" to 'ivedue respet to the Court and to refrain from intemperate and offensive lan'ua'e tendin' to influene the Court on pendin' matters or todeni'rate the Court and the administration of <ustie and warned that the same or similar at in the future shall be dealt with more severel(+

%3& 5he separate Compliane of Dean /arvi /+?+F+ 0eonen re'ardin' the har'e of violation of Canon 1$ is found 9NS,5ISF,C5ORH+ Be is

further ,D/ONISBED to be more mindful of his dut(" as a member of the )ar" an offier of the Court" and a Dean and professor of law" toobserve full andor and honest( in his dealin's with the Court and warned that the same or similar at in the future shall be dealt with moreseverel(+

%& *rof+ 0(nh" who is not a member of the *hilippine bar" is e2used from these proeedin's+ Bowever" he is reminded that while he isen'a'ed as a professor in a *hilippine law shool he should strive to be a model of responsible and professional ondut to his students evenwithout the threat of santion from this Court+

%=& Finall(" respondents> reuests for a hearin' and for aess to the reords of ,+/+ No+ 1$:7:17:SC are denied for la- of merit+

SO ORDERED+

Documents

Re Letter of the Up Faculty