SC affirms admonition order vs UP College of Law professors

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed its ruling last March that cracked the whip on the dean and some professors of the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law for their statement last year against the court and one of its magistrates who was accused but was later cleared of a plagiarism charge.

In an 11-page resolution, the High Court stood by its decision to admonish Dean Marvic Leonen for setting a bad example to law students by issuing the statement “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court,” which sought the resignation of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo over earlier plagiarism charges against him.

The SC dismissed for lack of merit the appeal filed by two of 35 professors also admonished by the court – Tristan Catindig and Carina Laforteza – and that was supported by Dean Leonen through a manifestation submitted also last April 1.

The high tribunal junked the claim of the two UP professors that their statement had “good intentions” and only “called for constructive action.” It stood by its ruling that the “emphatic language” used in the statement warranted a contempt citation.

In their motion for reconsideration, Catindig and Laforteza also argued that they were not accorded due process under indirect contempt proceedings.

But the SC, through Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, said this argument is shallow and explained that the case is a purely administrative matter over which its discretion applies.

“The very same contumacious speech or conduct directed against a court or judicial officer, if committed by a member of the Bar, may likewise subject the offender to disciplinary proceedings under the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prescribed that lawyers observe and promote due respect for the courts. In such disciplinary cases, the sanctions are not penal but administrative such as disbarment, suspension, reprimand or admonition,” it stressed.

The court added it has discretion to impose penalty for offensive words “either as contempt or an ethical violation or both,” citing at least four earlier rulings as basis.

Since Leonen did not formally appeal the admonition order in his manifestation, it was just noted by the court.

Apart from Catindig and Laforteza, 33 other professors were reminded of their duty as officers of the court. They were 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, Sandra Marie Coronel, Rosario Gallo, Concepcion Jardeleza, Antonio La Viña, Jose Laureta, Owen Lynch, Rodolfo Noel Quimbo, Antonio Santos, Gmeleen Faye Tomboc, Nicholas Felix Ty, Evalyn Ursua, Susan Villanueva and Dina Lucenario.

A faculty member, lawyer Raul Vasquez, was earlier exonerated after he apologized to the court.

Chief Justice Renato Corona voted with Justice Leonardo-de Castro in affirming the admonition order. They were joined by Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Roberto Abad, Jose Perez and Jose Mendoza.

Justice Antonio Eduardo Nachura, who earlier dissented, joined the majority ruling before he retired from the bench last June 10.

Justice del Castillo, subject of the plagiarism charge, also voted to dismiss the appeal after opting not to take part in the earlier deliberation.

Four other justices – Senior Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Conchita Carpio-Morales, Martin Villarama Jr. and Ma. Lourdes Sereno – maintained their dissent.

The UP law faculty’s accusing statement had prompted the court to order an investigation by its committee on ethics.

It was found that the statement, which condemned the alleged plagiarism and called for the resignation of Justice del Castillo, was signed by only 37 out of 81 members of the faculty.

“And retired Justice Vicente Mendoza did not sign the statement, contrary to what the dummy represented. The Committee wondered why Dean (Marvic Leonen) submitted a dummy of the signed document when UP has an abundance of copying machines,” the Court stressed in its earlier ruling clearing Justice del Castillo of the plagiarism charge.

The magistrate is now subject of impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives over the same allegation.