G.R. No. 162230 October 15, 2010
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO.

FACTS

Petitioners, members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, filed a petition to compel the Executive Department to espouse their claims for reparations from Japan for systematic rape during World War II. The Court, through a Decision penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, dismissed the petition, citing the Executive’s exclusive prerogative on foreign policy and a lack of international legal obligation. Petitioners later filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration, accusing Justice Del Castillo of plagiarism and twisting the meanings of sourced materials. They alleged he copied without attribution from three foreign legal articles and misrepresented their arguments to support the Court’s conclusion that the Philippines had no duty to pursue the claims.
The charges were referred to the Court’s Committee on Ethics. Justice Del Castillo submitted a verified letter stating there was no malicious intent to plagiarize, attributing any lack of attribution to the extensive revision process of the draft decision. The authors of the sourced materials expressed concerns, with one noting the Court may have misread his arguments. The University of the Philippines College of Law faculty also issued a public statement condemning the decision as an act of dishonesty.

ISSUE

Whether Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo is guilty of plagiarism and unethical conduct in the preparation of the Vinuya decision.

RULING

The Court En Banc, through a Per Curiam Decision, found Justice Del Castillo NOT guilty of plagiarism or unethical conduct. The legal logic rests on the distinction between a lack of malicious intent and the technical act of copying. The Court acknowledged that certain passages from foreign sources were indeed reproduced in the decision without proper quotation marks and, in some instances, without complete citation. However, it concluded this was not done with “malicious intent” to appropriate the work of others. The Court attributed the omissions to “accidental removal” of attributions during the rigorous and repeated revision process of the draft ponencia, which involved multiple circulations and deliberations.
Crucially, the Court held that for an act to constitute ethical plagiarism in the judicial context, it must involve a deliberate intent to steal another’s work. Since the evidence showed the researcher had compiled the sources and the intent was to cite them, the failure was deemed inadvertent. Regarding the charge of “twisting” the sources, the Court ruled this was a matter of interpretive disagreement on points of law, not an ethical violation. The Court emphasized judicial privilege in utilizing and interpreting legal sources to support its reasoning. The absence of dishonest intent absolved Justice Del Castillo of the ethical charges, though the decision underscored the paramount importance of scrupulous attribution in judicial writing.