Re Letter of the UP Faculty (DAVE)

Re: Letter of the UP Faculty Entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the UP College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court” FACTS 

   

Attys. Harry Roque, Jr. and Romel Bagares, lawyers for the comfort women who were the subject of the case Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary, hurled allegations of plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, author of the ponencia for the said case. Authors of the articles that were allegedly plagiarized sent letters to the Court, asking for a response to the alleged use of their articles without proper referencing, and the apparent misuse and twisting of their theses The Court formed the Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards to investigate the claims Faculty members of the UP College of Law released a statement regarding the issue, entitled “Restoring Integrity” The Court directed the professors to show cause why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for violation of Canons 1, 11 and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

ISSUES

I. Does the Show Cause Resolution deny the professors their freedom of expression or academic freedom? –NO 



It was neither the criticism of the Vinuya decision nor the charge of plagiarism that motivated the Resolution, but the manner of the criticism and the contumacious language by which respondents expressed their opinion. Respondents not only expressed a belief that Justice Del Castillo was guilty of plagiarism but rather, they expressed that belief as not only as an established fact, but a truth, when it was of public knowledge that there was an ongoing investigation precisely to determine the truth of such allegations. The Court considered some parts of the letter an institutional attack on the SC based on the language used: o “An extraordinary act of injustice has again been committed against the brave Filipinas who had suffered abuse during a time of war.” o The first paragraph concludes with a reference to the decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary as a “reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land.” o The insult to the members of the Court was aggravated by imputations of deliberately delaying the resolution of the said case, its dismissal on the basis of “polluted sources,” the Court’s alleged indifference to the cause of petitioners [in the Vinuya case], as well as the supposed alarming lack of concern of the members of the Court for even the most basic values of decency and respect. The Court acknowledged the need for freedom of expression in a democratic government, but held that this should be balanced balanced against the equally primordial concern that the independence of the Judiciary be protected from due influence or interference. It quoted from the Salcedo decision, which stated that: “As a member of the bar and an officer of this court, Attorney Vicente J. Francisco, as any attorney, is in duty bound to uphold its dignity and authority and to defend its integrity,





not only because it has conferred upon him the high privilege, not a right (Malcolm, Legal Ethics, 158 and 160), of being what he now is: a priest of justice (In re Thatcher, 80 Ohio St. Rep., 492, 669), but also because in so doing, he neither creates nor promotes distrust in the administration of justice, and prevents anybody from harboring and encouraging discontent which, in many cases, is the source of disorder, thus undermining the foundation upon which rests that bulwark called judicial power to which those who are aggrieved turn for protection and relief.” The Court reiterated CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others, and Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts. This is not a violation of their academic freedom because the constitutional right to freedom of expression of members of the Bar may be limited by their ethical duties as lawyers to give due respect to the courts and to uphold the public’s faith in the legal profession and the justice system. The reason that freedom of expression may be so delimited in the case of lawyers applies with greater force to the academic freedom of law professors.

II. Do the good faith and noble motives of Respondents excuse them from liability?- NO 





No matter how firm a lawyer’s conviction in the righteousness of his cause there is simply no excuse for denigrating the courts and engaging in public behavior that tends to put the courts and the legal profession into disrepute. The validity of their views regarding the plagiarism issue in the Vinuya case was wholly immaterial to their liability for contumacious speech and conduct. The Court doubted the intentions of the professors when they branded the SC as, among others, callous, dishonest and lacking in concern for the basic values of decency and respect. The Court failed to see how it could ennoble the profession if it allowed respondents to send a signal to their students that the only way to effectively plead their cases and persuade others to their point of view is to be offensive. The foreign authors’ letters underscore the universality of the tenet that legal professionals must deal with each other in good faith and due respect. They compared the language used here to that employed by the UP Faculty, and held that the former was the proper way to question the Court. The Court also doubted the claim that the intent of the letter was to initiate a constructive solution to the issue of plagiarism because it was delivered to the Media before it was handed to the Court.

HOLDING These 35 respondent law professors are REMINDED of their lawyerly duty, under Canons 1, 11 and 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to give due respect to the Court and to refrain from intemperate and offensive language tending to influence the Court on pending matters or to denigrate the Court and the administration of justice and warned that the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.