G.R. No. A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC; October 19, 2010
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 administrative matter arose from a public statement issued by certain faculty members of the University of the Philippines College of Law concerning the Supreme Court’s decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. The statement was published while a motion for reconsideration in the Vinuya case was pending and while an internal Court investigation into allegations of plagiarism in the Vinuya ponencia, authored by Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, was ongoing. The UP Law faculty statement condemned the decision as a “reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation,” accused the Court of deciding based on “polluted sources,” and imputed deliberate delay and a “callous disposition” to the justices, ultimately calling for Justice Del Castillo’s resignation.
The Court required the signatories to show cause why they should not be disciplined for contempt. In response, Dean Marvic Leonen submitted a copy of the statement bearing only 37 signatures, whereas the originally published version had listed 81 names, including that of a retired justice. The Dean explained he had sent a “dummy” copy initially and apologized for any confusion.

ISSUE

Whether the UP Law faculty members who signed and published the statement are liable for contempt of court.

RULING

Yes, the Court found the 37 signatories liable for indirect contempt. The legal logic rests on the principle that while criticism of judicial proceedings is protected, it must not cross the line into abuse that undermines judicial integrity and independence. The Court emphasized that the publication was “totally unnecessary, uncalled for and a rash act of misplaced vigilance,” given the pending motion for reconsideration and the ongoing internal investigation. By pre-judging the issue, accusing the Court of dishonesty and misrepresentation, and using intemperate and inflammatory language, the statement exceeded the bounds of fair criticism. It constituted an improper attempt to influence the Court’s resolution of the pending motion and to pressure a member to resign, thereby obstructing the administration of justice.
The act of publishing such a statement while a case is sub judice is punishable as indirect contempt under the Rules of Court. The Court rejected the defense that the submission of a “dummy” was a mere procedural oversight, noting the discrepancy in signatures indicated a lack of due diligence. The signatories, as law professors, are held to a high standard of understanding of professional responsibility and the sub judice rule. Their actions displayed a disregard for the orderly processes of the Court. Accordingly, the 37 respondents were each fined P20,000.00.