G.R. No. A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC; February 8, 2011
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO.

FACTS

Petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya, et al., members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s October 12, 2010 decision dismissing their charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo. The charges arose from the decision Justice Del Castillo penned in G.R. No. 162230, Vinuya v. Romulo. Petitioners primarily claimed the Court’s prior decision effectively legalized plagiarism in the Philippines.

ISSUE

Whether the Court’s prior dismissal of the charges against Justice Del Castillo was correct, specifically concerning the definition and application of “plagiarism” in the context of judicial decision-writing.

RULING

The Court DENIED the motion for reconsideration and AFFIRMED its dismissal of the charges.
The Court clarified that it condemns plagiarism as commonly defined, which involves the deliberate and knowing presentation of another’s ideas or words as one’s own, requiring malicious intent. It distinguished the context of judicial writing from academic writing. In academia, originality is paramount, and some institutions may adopt strict norms where the act of false attribution itself, regardless of intent, constitutes plagiarism. However, the primary objective of a judicial decision is to resolve disputes justly and correctly, not to produce original scholarship.
The Court emphasized the doctrine of stare decisis, which obligates judges to apply established legal principles and precedents. Judicial writing often involves lifting passages from legal precedents and commentaries to ensure precision and correctness, and omissions of attribution, without malicious intent, are a recognized practice and tradition within the legal profession. The Court cited authorities noting that judges are exempt from charges of plagiarism because they are not writing literary works but resolving disputes, and legal materials are effectively treated as being in the public domain for use by lawyers and judges.
The Court concluded that Justice Del Castillo’s work in the Vinuya decision involved analyzing facts, formulating issues, and applying the law—which constitutes the judge’s creative and original labor. The lack of attribution in judicial decisions, a practice never before condemned as plagiarism in over a century of Philippine judiciary history, does not constitute the dishonest act of plagiarism as understood in its common, intent-requiring sense.