With these considerations, and bearing in mind the
solemn duties and trust reposed upon them as teachers in the profession
of Law, it is the opinion of the Faculty of the University of the
Philippine College of Law that:
(1) The plagiarism committed in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary
is unacceptable, unethical and in breach of the high standards of moral
conduct and judicial and professional competence expected of the
Supreme Court;
(2) Such a fundamental breach endangers the integrity
and credibility of the entire Supreme Court and undermines the
foundations of the Philippine judicial system by allowing implicitly the
decision of cases and the establishment of legal precedents through
dubious means;
(3) The same breach and consequent disposition of the Vinuya
case does violence to the primordial function of the Supreme Court as
the ultimate dispenser of justice to all those who have been left
without legal or equitable recourse, such as the petitioners therein;
(4) In light of the extremely serious and
far-reaching nature of the dishonesty and to save the honor and dignity
of the Supreme Court as an institution, it is necessary for the ponente
of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary to resign his position, without
prejudice to any other sanctions that the Court may consider
appropriate;
(5) The Supreme Court must take this opportunity to
review the manner by which it conducts research, prepares drafts,
reaches and finalizes decisions in order to prevent a recurrence of
similar acts, and to provide clear and concise guidance to the Bench and
Bar to ensure only the highest quality of legal research and writing in
pleadings, practice, and adjudication.
x x x
WHEREFORE, this administrative matter is decided as follows:
(1) With respect to Prof. Vasquez, after favorably noting his submission, the Court finds his Compliance to be satisfactory.
(2) The Common Compliance of 35 respondents, namely,
Attys. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Froilan M. Bacungan, Pacifico A. Agabin,
Merlin M. Magallona, Salvador T. Carlota, Carmelo V. Sison, Patricia
R.P. Salvador Daway, Dante B. Gatmaytan, Theodore O. Te, Florin T.
Hilbay, Jay L. Batongbacal, Evelyn (Leo) D. Battad, Gwen G. De Vera,
Solomon F. Lumba, Rommel J. Casis, Jose Gerardo A. Alampay, Miguel R.
Armovit, Arthur P. Autea, Rosa Maria J. Bautista, Mark R. Bocobo, Dan P.
Calica, Tristan A. Catindig, Sandra Marie O. Coronel, Rosario O. Gallo,
Concepcion L. Jardeleza, Antonio G.M. La Viña, Carina C. Laforteza,
Jose C. Laureta, Rodolfo Noel S. Quimbo, Antonio M. Santos, Gmeleen Faye
B. Tomboc, Nicholas Felix L. Ty, Evalyn G. Ursua, Susan D. Villanueva
and Dina D. Lucenario, is found UNSATISFACTORY. 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.
(3) The separate Compliance of Dean Marvic M.V.F.
Leonen regarding the charge of violation of Canon 10 is found
UNSATISFACTORY. He is further ADMONISHED to be more mindful of his duty,
as a member of the Bar, an officer of the Court, and a Dean and
professor of law, to observe full candor and honesty in his dealings
with the Court and warned that the same or similar act in the future
shall be dealt with more severely.
(4) Prof. Lynch, who is not a member of the
Philippine bar, is excused from these proceedings. However, he is
reminded that while he is engaged as a professor in a Philippine law
school he should strive to be a model of responsible and professional
conduct to his students even without the threat of sanction from this
Court.
(5) Finally, respondents’ requests for a hearing and
for access to the records of A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC are denied for lack of
merit.
No comments:
Post a Comment