View full case

UP LAW FACULTY'S STATEMENT ON ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM

FACTS:

This case involves a motion for reconsideration filed by University of the Philippines (UP) law professors Tristan A. Catindig and Carina C. Laforteza, and a manifestation filed by Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen and Prof. Theodore O. Te. The motion and manifestation seek to challenge the Court's decision dated March 8, 2011, which found the respondents guilty of breaching their ethical obligations and making false charges against Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo.

In their motion, Professors Catindig and Laforteza argue that there was a finding of indirect contempt against them, despite the administrative docketing of the case. They claim that there were references to "contumacious language" in the Court's decision, and contend that the due process safeguards guaranteed in indirect contempt proceedings were not observed. They also argue that they should be given the opportunity to address the evidence presented in another case (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC) and to present their own evidence in relation to the plagiarism and misrepresentation issues.

The respondents, in their motion, pray that the Court's decision be reconsidered and set aside, and that the reference to them in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC be expunged. They alternatively seek to be afforded their full rights to due process and the opportunity to present evidence on the matters subject to the Show Cause Resolution.

The respondents argue that the Court erred in finding them guilty of breaching their ethical obligations for issuing the "Restoring Integrity" statement. They contend that the same incident of contumacious speech and behavior directed against the Court by a lawyer may be punishable as contempt or an ethical violation, or both, in the discretion of the Court. They cite previous cases where penalties were imposed for both contempt and ethical violations.

The respondents also distinguish cases where only administrative sanctions were imposed on lawyers who exhibited contumacious behavior or made offensive statements to the Court, without any penal sanctions. However, they argue that the main issue in their case concerns their professional identity, duty as lawyers, and fitness as officers of the Court, and should not be regarded as an indirect contempt case.

(Note: This partial digest only includes the section on "FACTS".)

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the respondents were denied due process in the finding that they breached their ethical obligations without observance of the due process safeguards in an indirect contempt proceeding.

  2. Whether the respondents are entitled to access and address the evidence presented in another case and to present their own evidence in respect of the plagiarism and misrepresentation issues.

  3. Whether the respondents are in breach of their ethical obligations for issuing the Restoring Integrity statement.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the respondents were not denied due process and that the finding of breach of ethical obligations was proper. The Court also ruled that the respondents were not entitled to access and address the evidence presented in another case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Contumacious speech or conduct directed against the court may be considered as indirect contempt under the Rules of Court and may also subject the offender to disciplinary proceedings under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

  • The same incident of contumacious speech and/or behavior directed against the court on the part of a lawyer may be punishable as contempt or an ethical violation, or both, in the discretion of the court.

  • The penalties for contempt and ethical violations are different - contempt carries penal sanctions such as imprisonment or fine, while ethical violations carry administrative sanctions such as disbarment, suspension, reprimand, or admonition.

  • The disciplinary case concerns the professional identity, sworn duty as a lawyer, and fitness as an officer of the court, while the contempt case solely concerns the act of contumacious speech and behavior.

  • Access to evidence and presentation of evidence in another case is not automatically granted to respondents in a different case.

  • Breach of ethical obligations can be found based on the issuance of a statement that is in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.