Kristin April C.

Carandang

2020 – 0178

Legal Writing

Synthesis of Citation Styles/Guides Cases

Ah, what a symmetry!

We covered what characteristics we ought to posses as a legal writers last time.

This time, through these cases, we saw what we ought to avoid.

After reading through the cases assigned under this topic, I have deduced four
(4) pitfalls of legal writing: plagiarism (Justice Del Castillo Case), use of intemperate,
offensive and abusive language (Gimeno v Zaide), misquoting and twisting of
jurisprudence (Torres v Dalangin) and affixing of signature to pleadings
intentionally or inadvertently (Mariano v Abrajano & Bayauya).

In the Matter of Charges of Plagiarism, etc. Against Associate Justice Mariano Del
Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC October 12, 2010 & February 8, 2011

Plagiarism had been extensively discussed in this case – its meaning, implication
and effect, not only to the litigating parties but to the whole legal community as whole.
This case stems from the petition filed by the members of the Malaya Lolas
Organization requesting for assistance in filing their claims for being victims of the
systematic raping scheme of the Japanese Army during their invasion in the Philippines.
Their legal counsel was Atty. Harry Roque. This petition was denied and the decision
was penned by Atty. Justice Mariano Del Castillo. Atty. Roque, in his filed supplemental
motion for reconsideration accusing Justice Del Castillo of manifest intellectual theft and
outright plagiarism when he wrote the decision and by twisting the true intents of the
plagiarized sources to suit the arguments of the assailed judgment. They charged
Justice Del Castillo of copying without acknowledgement certain passages from three
foreign articles: (1) A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-
Descent; (2) Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark Ellis; and (3)
Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations by Christian J. Tams.

Petitioners claim that the integrity of the Courts deliberations in the case has been
put into question by Justice Del Castillo fraud.

Justice Del Castillo’s researcher explained that the attribution to the sources found
in the beginning drafts of her reports to the Justice were unintentionally deleted.

The Court ruled that there was no plagiarism in the case because the element of
intent is not present. To plagiarize is to take someone’s idea and pass it off as your own.
This is not the case here. Evidence showed that there was attribution to the authors in
the original drafts but such attributions were unintentionally deleted due to the errors of
Justice Del Castillo’s researcher. Hence, there was no intent by the Justice nor his
researcher to commit plagiarism. Neither can Justice Del Castillo be faulted for assigning
the research work to the research staff whose background is stellar (finished law from a
leading law school, graduated third in her class, served as Editor-in Chief of her schools
Law Journal, and placed fourth in the bar examinations when she took it. She earned a
master’s degree in International Law and Human Rights from a prestigious university in
the United States under the Global-Hauser program, which counsel for petitioners
concedes to be one of the top post graduate programs on International Law in the world).

The dissenting opinions in this case, given by Justice Carpio & Justice Serreno have
compelling points, to wit: (1 )in writing judicial decisions a judge must comply with the Law
on Copyright as the judge has no power to exempt himself from the mandatory
requirements of the law (2) The sheer volume of portions copied, added to the frequency
with which citations to the plagiarized works were omitted while care was taken to retain
citations to the sources cited by the plagiarized works, reveal that the plagiarism
committed cannot logically be anything other than deliberate (failure to make attribution
in the Vinuya Case 23 times, thirty-six (36) missing citations in the footnotes, including
twelve (12) citations missing from footnote.)

In conclusion, while the Court claims no plagiarism was done, dissenting opinions of
other Justices prove otherwise.
JOY A. GIMENO vs ATTY. PAUL CENTILLAS ZAIDE, A.C. 10303, April 22, 2015

“In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's language even in his
pleadings, must be dignified” – Gimeno v Zaide

“Notorious extortionist” – Atty. Zaide to Joy A. Gimeno in an administrative

“Counsel suffering from serious mental incompetence” – Atty. Zaide to an

These were some of the languages used by Atty. Zaide in his pleadings and were
made basis by complainant Joy A. Gimena in filing a complaint with IBP charging Atty.
Zaide with use of intemperate, offensive and abusive language, among other charges.
Atty Zaide, in his defense, merely belied this specific charge. The Court ruled that The
prohibition on the use of intemperate, offensive and abusive language in a lawyer's
professional dealings, whether with the courts, his clients, or any other person, is based
on Canons 8, 8.01, 11, 11,03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The copy of the pleadings attesting the truthfulness of the claim against Atty. Zaide
confirms Atty. Zaide's lack of restraint in the use and choice of his words — a conduct
unbecoming of an officer of the court. The Court further emphasized that while a lawyer
is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify
the use of offensive and abusive language. Language abounds with countless
possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, and
illuminating but not offensive.
Atty. Torres v Atty. Dalangin, AC No. 10758, December 5, 2017

This case is a consolidation of four cases, two of which charged Atty. Bayani P.
Dalangin with several complaints on his behavior and performance as an Attorney to wit:
filing of groundless suits, maliciously coaching of clients and having them sign affidavits
without explaining the same to them, maintaining and illicit affair with a married woman
and conceiving a child with the latter, collecting money from indigent clients as a PAO
Attorney, and misquoting of jurisprudence in a pleading he filed at court; perjury of witness
statement (Samantra v Pascual robbery case).

The other charges were dismissed for lack of factual basis, save one: the Court
finds fault for his misquote of jurisprudence cited in a pleading filed with the RTC, Branch
35, Gapan City for Cad. Case No. 1564-05 entitled Bangko Luzon v. Diaz.

Cited jurisprudence:

"If a court of competent jurisdiction annulled the foreclosure sale of the property in
question, the issuance of a writ of possession ceases to be ministerial."

In the said case of BPI vs. Tampipi, there is nothing mentioned about the cessation
of the ministerial function of the court but instead what is clearly stated in the decision are
the following:

"Until the foreclosure sale of the property in question is annulled by a court of

This constitutes violation of Canon 10, 10.2 which provides:

“ lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of paper, the
language or the argument of the opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority,
or knowingly cite as a law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved."

However, instead of the three-year suspension imposed by IBP, Atty. Dalangin

This case amplifies the importance of affixing signatures in pleadings and other
legal documents. Legal practitioners, cannot and should not invoke inadvertence on
signing any legal document when the profession dictates prudence, diligence and wit.

Atty. Abrajano & Atty. Bayauaya were charged with conspiracy in committing
deceitful acts in preparation and filing of petitions to wit: (1) Falsely indicating address of
the parties; (2) Untruthful statements in petitions (no real properties during subsistence
of marriage due to Lany); (3) Making it appear summons were served properly (4)
Presented false testimony and fabricated story.

Atty. Abrajano died before the filing of the complaint. Atty. Bayauaya denied being
a partner of Atty. Abrajano and asserted that he merely accommodated Atty. Abrajano’s
request of using his office. And while he did sign & notarize the documents from Atty.
Abrajano, he only did so because the latter was under oath that the contents of the petition
were true.

The Court held that Atty. Bayauaya’s contentions are untenable. The signature of
a counsel constitutes a certificate that he has read the pleading; to the best of his
knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it and it is not
interposed for delay. Thus, Atty. Bayaua's act of signing the same is essentially a
certification coming from him that he has read it, that he knew it to be meritorious, and it
was not for the purpose of delaying the case. More importantly, it was his signature on
these pleadings which supplied the same with legal effect and elevated their status from
a mere scrap of paper to that of a court document. Indubitably, there is substantial
evidence to hold Atty. Bayaua administratively liable in this case.
Conclusion

A review of the dispositive portions of these cases would show that no legal
professional was actually disbarred or imprisoned. They were merely admonished,
warned or suspended from practicing law for a period of time. But something in these
accused individuals certainly received punishment far worse that the courts can ever
pronounce – their integrities.

To be marked as a thief of someone else’s ideas, or a foul mouthed & minded

The profession we are pursing is reposed with so much trust and confidence.
People, upon hearing the title “Attorney” before the names, accords much respect and
reverence. We should therefore strive to deserve this title to best we can.