FACTS:

The case involves a special civil action of certiorari filed by petitioners who were elderly women claiming to be victims of systematic rape and abuse by the Japanese army during World War II. They sought assistance from the Executive Department to file claims against the responsible Japanese military officers, but their requests were declined. The petitioners then filed a petition before the Court, seeking to compel the Executive Department to espouse their claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan before international tribunals.

The Court, through Justice Del Castillo, dismissed the petitioners' action, stating that the Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative to decide whether to espouse the claim, and that the Philippines is not obliged under international law to do so. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and later accused Justice Del Castillo of plagiarism, alleging that he copied passages from three foreign articles without acknowledgement. They also claimed that the content of these works was twisted to suit the court's conclusions. The charges against Justice Del Castillo were referred to the Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards for investigation.

Dr. Ellis, one of the authors whose work was allegedly plagiarized, wrote a letter expressing concern about the misinterpretation of his argument in the article. The Dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law released a statement claiming that the Vinuya decision was an act of injustice and intellectual fraud. Mr. Tams, another author whose work was cited, expressed dissatisfaction with the referencing and inconsistent use of his work. A Committee was formed to investigate the matter and heard submissions from both sides.

The Committee allowed the Justice's court researcher to explain the research process that went into the decision, as counsels for Justice Del Castillo requested to be heard separately but were denied. The researcher admitted to unintentionally deleting the attribution of lifted passages from the draft report. Petitioners' counsel argued that lack of intent is not a defense in plagiarism. After the hearing, both parties were given ten days to file their memoranda. The Committee later submitted its unanimous findings and recommendations to the Court, which pertain to whether Justice Del Castillo plagiarized the works of authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis and whether he twisted their works to support the Court's position in the Vinuya decision.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the footnoting in the Vinuya decision, which lifted passages from Tams' book, adequately attributed the source of the passages.

2. Whether the Court's decision, which used passages from Ellis' published work as footnotes without attribution, violated principles of proper citation and acknowledgment.

3. Whether the absence of a reference to rape in the Nuremberg Judgment means that rape was not prosecuted as a crime against humanity.

4. Whether the acknowledgment of the existence of jus cogens norms and the lack of consensus on their substance in the Vinuya decision constitutes plagiarism.

5. Was the accidental removal of attributions to the authors a valid defense for the researcher's actions?

6. Whether Justice Del Castillo committed perjury by denying plagiarism in his letter despite his researcher's confession and whether there was a cover-up.

7. Whether intent is material in committing plagiarism and if the standards on plagiarism in the academe should apply to the judiciary.

8. Whether the omission of attributions to Criddle-Descent and Ellis gave the impression that Justice Del Castillo created the passages himself.

9. Whether the passages reproduced in the Vinuya decision without quotation marks constituted plagiarism.

10. Whether the lifting of passages from other works and the omission of attributions in the Vinuya decision constitutes twisting or misrepresentation.

11. Whether the acts or omissions of Justice Del Castillo in the Vinuya decision amount to misconduct.

12. Whether Justice Del Castillo is guilty of gross inexcusable negligence in the writing of the Vinuya decision.

13. Whether there was plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect committed by Justice Mariano C. del Castillo.

14. Whether the dummy exhibit presented by the petitioners was valid evidence.

RULING:

1. The Court ruled that the footnoting in the Vinuya decision sufficiently attributed the source of the passages lifted from Tams' book. Although Tams believed that the footnoting was not an appropriate form of referencing, it cannot be denied that the decision did attribute the source of the passages to Bruno Simma, whom Tams credited for those ideas. The Court held that such attribution negated the idea that Justice Del Castillo passed off the passages as his own.

2. The Court acknowledged that the footnotes in the decision, which lifted passages from Ellis' work without attribution, should have been introduced with an acknowledgment that they are from that article. The Court admitted that this was an oversight and that the footnotes should have been more detailed in their attribution. However, the Court deemed this to be a case of bad footnoting and not one of theft or deceit.

3. The absence of a reference to rape in the Nuremberg Judgment does not mean that rape was not prosecuted as a crime against humanity. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, despite not explicitly criminalizing rape in its Statute, prosecuted individuals for crimes including rape. Additionally, Control Council Law No. 10, adopted by the four occupying powers in Germany, included rape in the definition of crimes against humanity.

4. The acknowledgment of the existence of jus cogens norms and the lack of consensus on their substance in the Vinuya decision does not constitute plagiarism. The lack of attribution to the authors of the materials used in the decision was explained as an accidental deletion of attributions during the drafting process. The researcher primarily conducted research electronically, sourcing materials from online research services to which the Court subscribes.

5. The Court adopts the Committee's finding that the researcher's explanation regarding the accidental removal of proper attributions to the three authors is credible. Given the operational properties of the Microsoft program in use by the Court, the accidental decapitation of attributions to sources of research materials is not remote.

6. There is no proof that Justice Del Castillo committed perjury or engaged in a cover-up. His letter explained that the omissions in the decision were unintentional and attributed them to errors in research and drafting. The absence of any motive or reason for intentionally omitting attribution to the cited authors supports the conclusion that the omissions were due to inadvertence or oversight.

7. Intent is a crucial element in plagiarism, as it involves the deliberate and knowing presentation of another person's work as one's own. Petitioners' theory, which disregards the role of intent and does not allow room for errors in research, is unrealistic. The ruling in University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals does not indicate that an intent to pass off another's work as one's own is not required in plagiarism. Furthermore, the case at hand involved attributions to the original sources, not a claim of originality by Justice Del Castillo.

8. The omission of attributions to Criddle-Descent and Ellis did not create the impression that Justice Del Castillo created the lifted passages himself. The footnotes and references in the decision still imputed the passages to their original sources, thus eliminating any notion that Justice Del Castillo was passing them off as his own thoughts.

9. The reproduced passages in the Vinuya decision were not considered plagiarism as they consisted of common definitions, terms, abridged history, and frequently repeated phrases that already belong to the public realm in the world of legal literature.

10. The lifting of passages from other works and the omission of attributions in the Vinuya decision did not constitute twisting or misrepresentation as the decision did not distort or pervert the meaning of the lifted passages and did not imply that the authors supported the Court's conclusion.

11. The acts or omissions of Justice Del Castillo in the Vinuya decision did not amount to misconduct as they were not tainted with fraud, corruption, or malice.

12. Justice Del Castillo is not guilty of gross inexcusable negligence in the writing of the Vinuya decision as he maintained control over the writing and review process, and assigning cases for study and research to a court attorney is a standard practice dictated by necessity.

13. The Court dismissed the charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect against Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, ruling that he did not commit any of the alleged offenses.

14. The Court directed the Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards to turn over the dummy exhibit as well as the signed copy of petitioners' Exhibit J for the en banc's consideration in relation to a separate pending matter.

PRINCIPLES:

• Plagiarism involves the theft of another person's language, thoughts, or ideas and the passing off of those works as one's own.

• Proper attribution is necessary to avoid plagiarism. Attribution negates the idea of passing off someone else's work as one's own.

• Bad footnoting, although an oversight, does not equate to theft or deceit. Inaccurate or imprecise citations may be considered a case of bad footnoting rather than plagiarism.

• International Military Tribunals have prosecuted crimes, including rape, despite the absence of explicit mention of those crimes in their respective statutes.

• Control Council Law No. 10 included rape in the definition of crimes against humanity.

• The existence of jus cogens norms in international law is undisputed, but there is no consensus on their substance.

• Plagiarism involves the intentional or negligent failure to attribute sources, which was not the case in this instance.

• The accidental removal of attributions can be considered a valid defense if the researcher can show that it was unintentional and not a deliberate act of plagiarism.

• The use of computer programs in legal research can lead to unintended consequences, such as the blending of materials and the removal of attributions, due to the lack of built-in alarms or prompts to prevent such actions.

• Proper attributions are necessary to acknowledge the sources of research materials and to avoid plagiarism.

• Plagiarism is a form of fraud that requires intent to deceive and the deliberate presentation of another person's work as one's own.

• Errors in research or drafting can lead to inadvertent omissions, which do not necessarily indicate plagiarism.

• Intent is a crucial element in determining plagiarism, and standards on plagiarism in the academe may not apply with the same force to the judiciary.

• Attribution to the original sources is essential in negating the impression that lifted passages were created by the person reproducing them.

• Not all acts of reproducing passages without quotation marks constitute plagiarism if the passages consist of common definitions, terms, abridged history, and frequently repeated phrases in the public realm of legal literature.

• Twisting or misrepresentation requires distorting or perverting the meaning of the lifted passages, and mere omission of attributions does not imply twisting or misrepresentation.

• Only errors tainted with fraud, corruption, or malice amount to misconduct, and acts or omissions that are not motivated by such disreputable motives do not warrant disciplinary action.

• Assigning cases for study and research to a court attorney is a standard practice in high courts and is necessary due to the volume of cases, ensuring the wheels of justice do not grind to a halt.

• Errors in preparing decisions cannot be completely prevented as long as human beings, who are prone to errors, operate computers.

• Legal research and reporting court attorneys should avoid editing errors committed in cases with substantial volume of citations and footnoting.

• The Court should acquire software that can prevent future lapses in citations and attributions.