Court Clears Justice Del Castillo of Plagiarism
Uploaded by
Mir SolaimanCourt Clears Justice Del Castillo of Plagiarism
Uploaded by
Mir Solaiman43.
In the Matter of Charges of Plagiarism against Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo 642 SCRA 11 (2011)
DISPOSITIVE: ACCORDINGLY, the Court DENIES petitioners' motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
Facts: Petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya, et al., all members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, seek
reconsideration of the decision of the Court dated October 12, 2010 that dismissed their charges of plagiarism,
twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect against Justice Mariano Del Castillo in G.R. No. 162230,
entitled Vinuya v. Romulo. Mainly, petitioners claim that the Court has by its decision legalized or approved of
the commission of plagiarism in the Philippines.
Issue: Whether or not plagiarism was committed
Ruling: No. To paraphrase Bast and Samuels, while the academic publishing model is based on the originality
of the writer's thesis, the judicial system is based on the doctrine of stare decisis, which encourages courts to
cite historical legal data, precedents, and related studies in their decisions. The judge is not expected to
produce original scholarship in every respect. The strength of a decision lies in the soundness and general
acceptance of the precedents and long held legal opinions it draws from.
Decisions of courts are not written to earn merit, accolade, or prize as an original piece of work or art.
Deciding disputes is a service rendered by the government for the public good. Judges issue decisions to
resolve everyday conflicts involving people of flesh and blood who ache for speedy justice or juridical beings
which have rights and obligations in law that need to be protected. The interest of society in written decisions
is not that they are originally crafted but that they are fair and correct in the context of the particular disputes
involved. Justice, not originality, form, and style, is the object of every decision of a court of law.
There is a basic reason for individual judges of whatever level of courts, including the Supreme Court,
not to use original or unique language when reinstating the laws involved in the cases they decide. Their duty
is to apply the laws as these are written. But laws include, under the doctrine of stare decisis, judicial
interpretations of such laws as are applied to specific situations. Under this doctrine, Courts are "to stand by
precedent and not to disturb settled point." Once the Court has "laid down a principle of law as applicable to a
certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are
substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties or property are the same."
A judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or appellate, is exempted from a charge of
plagiarism even if ideas, words or phrases from a law review article, novel thoughts published in a legal
periodical or language from a party's brief are used without giving attribution. Thus judges are free to use
whatever sources they deem appropriate to resolve the matter before them, without fear of reprisal. This
exemption applies to judicial writings intended to decide cases for two reasons: the judge is not writing a
literary work and, more importantly, the purpose of the writing is to resolve a dispute.
In Vinuya, Justice Del Castillo examined and summarized the facts as seen by the opposing sides in a
way that no one has ever done. He identified and formulated the core of the issues that the parties raised.
And when he had done this, he discussed the state of the law relevant to their resolution. It was here that he
drew materials from various sources, including the three foreign authors cited in the charges against him. He
compared the divergent views these present as they developed in history. He then explained why the Court
must reject some views in light of the peculiar facts of the case and applied those that suit such facts. Finally,
he drew from his discussions of the facts and the law the right solution to the dispute in the case. On the
whole, his work was original. He had but done an honest work.
The Court will not, therefore, consistent with established practice in the Philippines and elsewhere,
dare permit the filing of actions to annul the decisions promulgated by its judges or expose them to charges of
plagiarism for honest work done.
