The Supreme Court of the Philippines, in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, dismissed charges of plagiarism against Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, ruling that unintentional errors in attribution do not constitute plagiarism, which inherently involves an intent to deceive. The Court emphasized that plagiarism is a form of fraud requiring a deliberate effort to pass off another’s work as one’s own, and that the accidental omission of citations by a researcher, without malicious intent, does not meet this standard. This decision clarifies the importance of intent in plagiarism cases within the judiciary and sets a precedent for evaluating such claims based on ethical standards rather than mere technical errors.

When Research Errors Meet Plagiarism Allegations: Did Justice Del Castillo Cross the Line?

The case revolves around a supplemental motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya, et al., who accused Justice Mariano C. del Castillo of plagiarism in writing the decision for G.R. No. 162230, a case concerning Filipino comfort women during World War II. The petitioners alleged that Justice Del Castillo copied passages from three foreign articles without proper acknowledgment and twisted their meanings to support the Court’s decision. These articles included:

a. A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Yale Journal of International Law (2009);
b. Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark Ellis, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law (2006); and
c. Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations by Christian J. Tams, Cambridge University Press (2005).

The controversy prompted the Court to investigate the matter through its Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards. Justice Del Castillo maintained that any omissions were unintentional and that there was no malicious intent to appropriate another’s work. A court researcher explained that the attributions were accidentally deleted during the editing process. The Court’s ruling hinged significantly on the credibility of this explanation and the absence of any evidence suggesting a deliberate attempt to deceive. The Court emphasized that plagiarism involves the theft of another person’s language, thoughts, or ideas, and that an indispensable element of plagiarism is the passing off of the work of another as one’s own.

The Court acknowledged that passages from Tams’ book, Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law (2006), were used in Footnote 69 of the Vinuya decision. While the author himself may have believed that the footnoting was not an appropriate form of referencing, the Court noted that the decision did attribute the source, primarily to Bruno Simma, whom Tams himself credited. The Court deemed that whether or not the footnote was sufficiently detailed was a matter of clarity of writing rather than an ethical breach. That is, if the justice’s citations were imprecise, it would just be a case of bad footnoting rather than one of theft or deceit. Ultimately, the court held that attribution, no matter how imprecise, negates the idea that Justice Del Castillo passed off the challenged passages as his own.

Regarding passages from Ellis’ article, the Court recognized that Footnote 65, which contained lengthy excerpts, should have included an acknowledgment that the passages were from Ellis’ work. Similarly, the Court admitted that eight sentences and their accompanying footnotes were lifted from Criddle-Descent’s article, A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens, without direct attribution to the authors in the footnotes. However, the Court accepted the researcher’s explanation that the attributions were accidentally deleted during editing. The Court emphasized the operational properties of the Microsoft program, in use by the Court, makes the accidental decapitation of attributions to sources of research materials not remote.

The Court addressed the petitioners’ argument that intent is not material in plagiarism, citing University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals and Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine. However, the Court clarified that plagiarism is essentially a form of fraud where intent to deceive is inherent. This theory provides no room for errors in research and places an automatic universal curse even on errors that, as in this case, have reasonable and logical explanations. The Court emphasized the 8^th edition of Black’s Law Dictionary defines plagiarism as the “deliberate and knowing presentation of another person’s original ideas or creative expressions as one’s own.” Therefore, plagiarism presupposes intent and a deliberate, conscious effort to steal another’s work and pass it off as one’s own.

The court further held that the omission of attributions to Criddle-Descent and Ellis did not bring about an impression that Justice Del Castillo himself created the passages that he lifted from their published articles. Because such passages remained attributed by the footnotes to the authors’ original sources, the omission of attributions to Criddle-Descent and Ellis gave no impression that the passages were the creations of Justice Del Castillo, and thus, wholly negates the idea that he was passing them off as his own thoughts. In sum, in this case, Justice Del Castillo’s acts or omissions were not shown to have been impelled by any such disreputable motives.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Justice Del Castillo committed plagiarism and twisted the works of authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis in writing the Vinuya decision.
What is the Court’s definition of plagiarism?	The Court defined plagiarism as the theft of another person’s language, thoughts, or ideas, where the work of another is passed off as one’s own. The indispensible element of plagiarism is the passing off of the work of another as one’s own.
What was the explanation for the missing attributions?	A court researcher explained that the attributions to Criddle-Descent and Ellis were accidentally deleted during the editing process of the draft report.
Did the Court find Justice Del Castillo guilty of plagiarism?	No, the Court dismissed the charges of plagiarism, finding that the omissions were unintentional and there was no malicious intent to deceive.
Is intent a necessary element of plagiarism, according to the Court?	Yes, the Court held that intent is a necessary element of plagiarism, as it is essentially a form of fraud that requires a deliberate effort to steal another’s work.
What was the significance of Footnote 69 in the decision?	Footnote 69 referenced Tams’ book but was deemed sufficient attribution, even if Tams himself believed it gave him less credit than he deserved.
How did the Court address the petitioners’ argument regarding standards on plagiarism in the academe?	The Court clarified that plagiarism is essentially a form of fraud where intent to deceive is inherent and that their theory provided no room for errors in research.
What was the main reason for the Court’s decision to dismiss the charges?	The Court dismissed the charges because the acts were not shown to have been impelled by any disreputable motives. The court highlighted that if the omissions were not intentional and no impression that Justice Del Castillo himself created the passages that he lifted from their published articles, that wholly negates the idea that he was passing them off as his own thoughts.

This case serves as a reminder of the ethical responsibilities of legal professionals, especially those in the judiciary, to ensure proper attribution of sources in their work. The Court’s decision underscores that while technical errors can occur, the presence of malicious intent to deceive is crucial in determining whether plagiarism has occurred.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, October 15, 2010