With respect to the motion for contempt filed by Margarita Cojuangco against Rina Jimenez-David, we believe that the article written by the latter is not such as to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. The allegedly contemptuous article merely restates the history of the case and reiterates the arguments which Rina Jimenez-David, together with some other journalists have raised before this Court in their Brief for Petitioner Vitug. We do not find in this case the contemptuous conduct exhibited by the respondent in In re Torres ¹³ where the respondent, being a newspaper editor, published an article which anticipated the outcome of a case in the Supreme Court, named the author of the decision, and pointed out the probable vote of the members of the Court although in fact, no such action had been taken by the court; and in In re Kelly ¹⁴ where respondent, having been convicted of contempt of court, published a letter during the pendency of his motion for a re-hearing of the contempt charge. In said letter, he severely criticized the court and its action in the proceeding for contempt against him. In contrast to the aforementioned publications, Rina Jimenez-David's article cannot be said to have cast doubt on the integrity of the court or of the administration of justice. If at all, it was a mere criticism of the existing libel law in the country. In view of the above considerations, we are constrained to deny the motion for contempt.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Likewise, the motion for contempt filed by respondent against Rina Jimenez-David is DENIED on the same ground.

G.R. No. 103618 May 20, 1994
MARITES DANGUILAN-VITUG, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. RAMON MABUTAS, JR., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch XLII, Manila, and MARGARITA R. COJUANGCO, respondents.

the press will end up printing "praise" releases and that is no way for the people to know the truth

Macasaet writes a daily column, "Business Circuit," in Malaya, a newspaper of general circulation. In the 18-21 September 2007 issues of Malaya, Macasaet ran a story, based on information obtained from confidential sources, of an alleged bribery in the Court committed as follows: on separate occasions in the second week of September 2007,² five³ boxes containing cash worth P10 million were delivered to the Court and received by a certain "Cecilia," a staff of an unnamed lady Justice, who opened one of the boxes and saw its contents. Forthwith, the Justice terminated "Cecilia’s" employment. The payoff was made allegedly in connection with a decision rendered by the Justice "acquitting" a Filipino-Chinese businessman. Macasaet’s story, which carried commentaries on the state of the judiciary and reputation of judges,⁴ exhorted "Cecilia" to divulge everything she knows about the alleged bribery and the Court to investigate the matter.

 xxx

 
[T]he Constitution did not conceive the press to act as the cheer leader of government, including the judiciary. Rather, the press is the agent of the people when it gathers news, especially news derogatory to those who hold the reins of government. The agency is necessary because the people must have all available information before they exercise their sovereign judgment. As well observed: "The newspapers, magazines, and other journals of the country, it is safe to say, have shed and continue to shed, more light on the public and business affairs of the nation than any other instrument of publicity; and since informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment, the suppression or abridgement of the publicity afforded by a free press cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave concern." As agent of the people, the most important function of the press in a free society is to inform and it cannot inform if it is uninformed. We should be wary when the independent sources of information of the press dry up, for then the press will end up printing "praise" releases and that is no way for the people to know the truth

xxx 

EN BANC

A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC             August 8, 2008
RE: IN THE MATTER OF THE ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THE COLUMNS OF MR. AMADO A.P. MACASAET PUBLISHED IN MALAYA DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 19, 20, AND 21, 2007

 

originality in the law is viewed with skepticism. It is only the arrogant fool or the truly gifted who will depart entirely from the established template and reformulate an existing idea in the belief that in doing so they will improve it. While over time incremental changes occur, the wholesale abandonment of established expression is generally considered foolhardy.9

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. As a result, judges adjudicating cases are not subject to a claim of legal plagiarism.⁸

EN BANC

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.

In   labor   cases,   as   in   other   administrative   proceedings,   only substantial  evidence  or  such  relevant  evidence  as   a  reasonable  mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion is required.^[50] To note, considering  that  substantial  evidence  is  an  evidentiary  threshold,  the Court, on exceptional cases, may assess the factual determinations made by the NLRC in a particular case. In Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna,^[51] the Court expressed the following view:

Accordingly, we do not re-examine conflicting evidence, re- evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute the findings of fact of the NLRC, an administrative body that has expertise in its specialized field. Nor do we substitute our “own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible.” The factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court.

Nevertheless, there are exceptional cases where we, in the exercise of our discretionary appellate jurisdiction may be urged to look into factual issues raised in a Rule 45 petition. For instance, when the   petitioner   persuasively alleges   that   there   is   insufficient   or insubstantial evidence on record to support the factual findings of the tribunal or court a quo, as Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court states in express terms that in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a  fact  may  be  deemed  established  only  if  supported  by substantialevidence.^[52] (Emphases supplied; citations omitted)

The evident conflict between the NLRC’s and CA’s factual findings as shown in the records of this case prompts the Court to sift through their respective  factual  determinations  if  only  to  determine  if  the  NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reaching its disposition, keeping in mind  that  the  latter’s  assessment  should  only  meet  the  threshold  of substantial evidence.

With the aforecited GSIS policies and procedures as guidelines and the basic rule that, in administrative cases, the quantum of evidence necessary to find an individual administratively liable is substantial evidence,^[43] the Court assesses the liability of Mallari in this administrative case.

Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is a reasonable ground to believe, based on the evidence submitted, that the respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of. It need not be overwhelming or preponderant, as is required in an ordinary civil case, or evidence beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in criminal cases, but the evidence must be enough for a reasonable mind to support a conclusion.^[44]

Contrary to the ruling of the CA, the Court finds substantial evidence to prove Mallari’s administrative liability.

As correctly pointed out by petitioner, this sworn statement by respondent is an admission against her interest.

Section 26, Rule 130, Rules of Court (which is of suppletory application) expressly states:

Section 26. Admission of a party. - The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.

The rationale for the rule was explained by the Supreme Court in Manila Electric Company v. Heirs of Spouses Dionisio Deloy:

Being an admission against interest, the documents are the best evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute. The rationale for the rule is based on the presumption that no man would declare anything against himself UNLESS SUCH DECLARATION WAS TRUE. Thus, it is fair to presume that the declaration corresponds to the truth, and it is his fault if it does not.

Respondent's representation in her COC for Senator that she had been a resident of the Philippines for a period of 6 years and 6 months by May 2013 is an admission that is binding on her. After all, she should not have declared it under oath if such declaration was not true.

Respondent's convenient defense that she committed an honest mistake on a difficult question of law, when she stated in her COC for Senator that her period of residence in the Philippines before May 13, 2013 was 6 years and 6 months, is at best self-serving. It cannot overturn the weight given to the admission against interest voluntarily made by respondent.

Assuming arguendo that as now belatedly claimed the same was due to an honest mistake, no evidence has been shown that there was an attempt to rectify the so-called honest mistake. The attempt to correct it in her present COC filed only on October 15, 2015 cannot serve to outweigh the probative weight that has to be accorded to the admission against interest in her 2013 COC for Senator.

Certainly, it is beyond question that her declaration in her 2013 COC for Senator, under oath at that, that she has been a resident of the Philippines since November 2006 still stands in the record of this Commission as an official document, which may be given in evidence against her, and the probative weight and binding effect of which is neither obliterated by the passing of time nor by the belated attempt to correct it in her present COC for President of the Philippines. Respondent cannot now declare an earlier period of residence. Respondent is already stopped from doing so. If allowed to repudiate at this late stage her prior sworn declaration, We will be opening the floodgates for candidates to commit material misrepresentations in their COCs and escape responsibility for the same through the mere expedient of conveniently changing their story in a subsequent COC. Worse, We will be allowing a candidate to run for President when the COC for Senator earlier submitted to the Commission contains a material fact or data barring her from running for the position she now seeks to be elected to. Surely, to rule otherwise would be to tolerate a cavalier attitude to the requirement of putting in the correct data in a COC. In fact, the COC filer, in that same COC, certifies under oath that the data given are indeed "true and correct".

Public respondent's conclusions are unjustified. In the first place, the COMELEC misapplied the concepts of admissions and honest mistake in weighing the evidence presented by petitioner. As will be discussed below, declarations against interest are not conclusiveevidence and must still be evaluated to determine their probative value. Neither does the declaration in her 2013 CoC foreclose the presentation of evidence of petitioner's good faith and honest belief that she has complied with the 10-year residency requirement for presidential candidates.

Admissions against Interest

Admissions against interest are governed by Section 26, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

Sec. 26. Admissions of a party. - The act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.

It is well to emphasize that admissions against interest fall under the rules of admissibility.^[85] Admissions against interest pass the test of relevance and competence. They, however, do not guarantee their own probative value and conclusiveness. Like all evidence, they must be weighed and calibrated by the court against all other pieces at hand. Also, a party against whom an admission against interest is offered may properly refute such declaration by adducing contrary evidence.^[86]

To be admissible, an admission must (1) involve matters of fact, and not of law; (2) be categorical and definite; (3) be knowingly and voluntarily made; and (4) be adverse to the admitter' s interests, otherwise it would be self-serving and inadmissible.^[87] An admission against interest must consist of a categorical statement or document pertaining to a matter of fact. If the statement or document pertains to a conclusion of law or necessitates prior settlement of questions of law, it cannot be regarded as an admission against interest.^[88]

Even a judicial admission, which does not require proof, for judicial admissions under Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court^[89] But even then, contrary evidence may be admitted to show that the admission was made through palpable mistake. In Bitong v. CA,^[90] the Court ruled that although acts or facts admitted in a pleading do not require proof and can no longer be contradicted, evidence aliunde can be presented to show that the admission was made through palpable mistake. Said the Court:

A party whose pleading is admitted as an admission against interest is entitled to overcome by evidence the apparent inconsistency, and it is competent for the party against whom the pleading is offered to show that the statements were inadvertently made or were made under a mistake of fact. In addition, a party against whom a single clause or paragraph of a pleading is offered may have the right to introduce other paragraphs which tend to destroy the admission in the paragraph offered by the adversary.

Every alleged admission is taken as an entirety of the fact which makes for the one side with the qualifications which limit, modify or destroy its effect on the other side. The reason for this is, where part of a statement of a party is used against him as an admission, the court should weigh any other portion connected with the statement, which tends to neutralize or explain the portion which is against interest.

In other words, while the admission is admissible in evidence, its probative value is to be determined from the whole statement and others intimately related or connected therewith as an integrated unit.^[91]