In a 10-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, the Court held that respondent UP law professors Tristan Catindig and Carina Laforteza failed to offer new arguments that would warrant the setting aside of its decision.
The Court, in its March 8 ruling, admonished Leonen “for setting a bad example to law students.”
Thirty-five other professors were reminded of their duty as officers of the court. They are Froilan Bacungan, Pacifico Agabin, Merlin Magallona, Salvador Carlota, Carmelo Sison, Patricia Salvador Daway, Dante Gatmaytan, Theodore Te, Florin Hilbay, Jay Batongbacal, Evelyn (Leo) Battad, Gwen de Vera, Solomon Lumba, Rommel Casis, Jose Gerardo Alampay, Miguel Armovit, Arthur Autea, Rosa Maria Bautista, Mark Bocobo, Dan Calica, Tristan Catindig, Sandra Marie Coronel, Rosario Gallo, Concepcion Jardeleza, Antonio La Viña, Carina Laforteza, Jose Laureta, Owen Lynch, Rodolfo Noel Quimbo, Antonio Santos, Gmeleen Faye Tomboc, Nicholas Felix Ty, Evalyn Ursua, Susan Villanueva and Dina Lucenario.
The Court, on the other hand, exonerated UP law Prof. Raul Vasquez after he apologized before the court.
“In all, the Court finds that respondent Professors Catindig and Laforteza have offered no substantial arguments to warrant a reconsideration of the decision dated March 8, 2011, nor to justify the grant of the reliefs prayed for in their motion,” the Court declared.
On the other hand, the Court merely noted the manifestation of Leonen and Te that they support the motion for reconsideration filed by Catindig and Laforteza.
The SC said the manifestation was just restatements of arguments previously proffered in their compliance and have been taken up in the decision in March.
“Since the manifestation, apart from being an expression of support for Professors Catindig and Laforteza’s motion for reconsideration, did not raise any new matter nor pray for any affirmative relief, the Court resolves to merely note the same,” the resolution stated.
The SC earlier held that the statement of the UP College of Law issued on August 9, 2010, regarding the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the SC “was totally unnecessary, uncalled for and a rash act of misplaced vigilance.”
The Court noted that the statement was issued despite the ongoing investigation on the issue of plagiarism and pending the motion for reconsideration of the decision alleged to contain plagiarized materials.
The Court added that the statement was apparently intended to discredit the April 28, 2010, decision of del Castillo in the Vinuya case and “undermine the Court’s honesty, integrity and competence in addressing the motion for reconsideration.
The Vinuya case involves the petition filed by a group of comfort women seeking to compel the government to espouse their claims against the Japanese government.
Del Castillo, dismissed the petition of the comfort women saying the issue is foreign relations matter, which should be addressed by the political branches and not by the courts.
The magistrate was later accused of lifting, without proper attribution, from at least three sources—an article published in 2009 in the Yale Law Journal of International Law, that was published by the Cambridge University Press in 2005 and an article published in 2006 in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law and make it appear that these sources support the arguments in his decision in the Vinuya case.
He, however, explained that the three articles being referred to by the petitioners are only appendages which provide small contribution to the resolution of the Vinuya case.
The Court has subsequently cleared del Castillo of plagiarism after it was established that the lack of attribution in his Vinuya ponencia was a result of “accidental removal of proper attributions to the three authors” by her legal researcher while drafting the decision in the computer.
In October last year the SC ordered the UP signatories to explain why administrative sanctions should not be imposed on them.
The SC, however, found the compliance of the UP law faculty unsatisfactory.
