SC denies UP profs’ plea to hear plagiarism plaint

The Supreme Court is standing by its decision denying the petition of two University of the Philippines (UP) law professors for a full hearing on the allegation of plagiarism made against Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo.

In a decision dated June 7, the high court threw out the motion for reconsideration filed by UP law professors Tristan Catindig and Carina Laforteza for “lack of merit,” virtually plugging all legal actions that may be pursued against Del Castillo.

Del Castillo is facing impeachment in the House of Representatives over the same accusation that he copied the works of international law experts in writing the Supreme Court’s resolution in a civil suit filed by World War II victims of sex slavery, or Filipino “comfort women.”

On March 8, the court directed Catindig, Laforteza and 35 other faculty members of the UP College of Law, including Dean Marvic Leonen, to explain or show cause why they should not be sanctioned for issuing the statement, “Restoring Integrity,” a scathing manifesto calling for Del Castillo’s resignation.

The court admonished Leonen and reminded him “to be more mindful of his duty… to observe full candor and honesty in his dealings with the court.” It also warned him that “the same or a similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.”

The UP law professors issued the statement after lawyers Harry Roque and Rommel Bagares accused Del Castillo of copying the works of international law experts Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Mark Ellis and Christian Tams in writing the ruling dismissing their clients’ damage suit against Japan.

The court later cleared Del Castillo and his legal researcher of the plagiarism charge after the latter reportedly admitted accidentally deleting the footnotes.

In its latest ruling, the court voted 11-4 to uphold its March 8 ruling in which it declared “unsatisfactory” the “compliance” of the 35 of 37 UP law professors to the show-cause order issued in October last year.

“Their very same contumacious speech or conduct directed against a court or judicial officer, if committed by a member of the bar, may likewise subject the offender to disciplinary proceedings under the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prescribes that lawyers observe and promote due respect for the courts,” it said.

Catindig and Laforteza had complained that they were not accorded due process by the high tribunal when it issued a decision “premised on a finding of indirect contempt.”

They claimed that their acts had “good intentions” aimed at soliciting “constructive action” from the high court.

The new ruling was authored by Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo–de Castro, who also penned the tribunal’s earlier resolution.

Concurring with her were Chief Justice Renato Corona and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Roberto Abad, Jose Perez and Jose Mendoza.

Del Castillo, who previously excused himself from participating in the matter, also voted to deny the petition.

Now-retired Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura reversed his dissenting vote and approved the majority decision before he stepped down on June 10.

Senior Associate Justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio-Morales and Associate Justices Martin Villarama Jr. and Ma. Lourdes Sereno, on the other hand, affirmed their dissenting votes.