G.R. No. A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC; June 7, 2011
Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court

FACTS

This is a resolution on a Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent UP law professors Tristan A. Catindig and Carina C. Laforteza, and a Manifestation filed by respondents Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen and Prof. Theodore O. Te, from the Court’s Decision dated March 8, 2011. The administrative matter stemmed from a “Restoring Integrity” statement issued by the UP Law faculty concerning allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the Supreme Court. In their Motion, Professors Catindig and Laforteza argued that: (A) the proceeding, while docketed as administrative, was premised on a finding of indirect contempt without observance of due process safeguards; (B) the Court erred in ruling that the plagiarism issues in the Vinuya case and in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC had no relation to their statement and that they were not entitled to access evidence from that case; and (C) the Court erred in finding they breached their ethical obligations. They prayed for reconsideration of the March 8, 2011 Decision, that their Compliance be deemed satisfactory, and that references to them in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC be expunged, or alternatively, that they be afforded full due process to present evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Motion for Reconsideration should be granted based on the grounds raised by the respondents.

RULING

The Court DENIED the Motion for Reconsideration and NOTED the Manifestation.
1. On the first ground, the Court held that the proceeding was an administrative disciplinary case, not an indirect contempt proceeding. The Court explained that contumacious speech or conduct by a lawyer can be subject to both contempt proceedings (with penal sanctions) and disciplinary proceedings (with administrative sanctions) for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. Citing jurisprudence (*Salcedo v. Hernandez, In re: Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen, In re Vicente Sotto, Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan*), the Court ruled that the mere citation of contempt principles in an administrative case does not transform it into a contempt proceeding. The Court had opted for an administrative case, not a contempt proceeding under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
2. On the second ground, the Court found that the respondents’ theory on the relevance of evidence from A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC had already been extensively debunked in the Decision dated March 8, 2011. The Court reiterated that the plagiarism and misrepresentation issues in that separate case had no relation to the respondents’ “Restoring Integrity” statement and the Show Cause Resolution issued against them.
3. On the third ground, the Court found that the arguments in the Motion for Reconsideration were mere restatements of those previously proffered and already taken up in the March 8, 2011 Decision.
The Manifestation by Dean Leonen and Prof. Te, being an expression of support for the Motion and raising no new matter or affirmative relief, was merely noted.