The Malaya Lolas received received an adverse adverse decision in the case Vinuya Vinuya vs Romulo Romulo decided by the Supreme Court on April 28, 200! The Malaya Lolas sou"ht the annulment o# said decision due to the alle"ed alle"ed irre irre"ul "ular arity ity in the $riti $ritin" n" o# the te%t o# the decision decision!! Alle"e Alle"edly dly,, the ponente o# said case, &ustice Mariano del Castillo copied verbatim portions o# the decision laid do$n in said case #rom three $or's by three #orei"n authors $ithout ac'no$led"in" ac'no$led"in" said authors hence an overt act o# pla"iarism $hich is hi"hly reprehensible! (la"iarism (la"iarism as de)ned by *lac'+s La$ ictionary is the -deliberate and 'no$in" presentation o# another person+s ori"inal ideas or creative e%pressions as one+s o$n!. /SS1 /SS1 3heth 3hether er or not pla"iari pla"iarism sm is applicab applicable le to decision decisions s promul"a promul"ated ted by the Supreme Supreme Court! 41L 5o! /t has been a lon" standin" practice in this 6urisdiction not to cite or ac'no$led"e the ori"in ori"inato ators rs o# passa" passa"es es and and vie$s vie$s #ound #ound in the Supre Supreme me Court+ Court+s s decisi decisions ons!! These These omissions are true #or many o# the decisions that have been penned and are bein" penned daily daily by ma"ist ma"istra rates tes #rom #rom the Court Court o# Appeal Appeals, s, the Sandi Sandi"an "anbay bayan an,, the Court Court o# Ta% Appeals, the Re"ional Trial Courts nation$ide and $ith them, the municipal trial courts and other )rst level courts! 5ever in the 6udiciary+s more than 00 years o# history has the lac' o# attribution been re"arded and demeaned as pla"iarism! As put by one author 7this time ac'no$led"ed by the Court, &oyce C! 9eor"e #rom her &udicial :pinion :pinion 3ritin" 3ritin" 4andboo' 4andboo' A 6ud"e $ritin" to resolve a dispute, $hether trial or appellate, is e%empted #rom a char"e o# pla"ia pla"iaris rism m even even i# ideas, ideas, $ords $ords or phras phrases es #rom #rom a la$ revie revie$ $ artic article, le, novel novel thou"h thou"hts ts published in a le"al periodical or lan"ua"e #rom a party+s brie# are used $ithout "ivin" attribution! Thus 6ud"es are #ree to use $hatever $hatever sources they deem appropriate appropriate to resolve the matter be#ore them, $ithout #ear o# reprisal! reprisal! This e%emption e%emption applies to 6udicial $ritin"s intended to decide cases #or t$o reasons the 6ud"e is not $ritin" a literary $or' and, more impo import rtan antl tly, y, the the purp purpos ose e o# the the $rit $ritin in" " is to resol esolve ve a disp disput ute! e! As a resul esult, t, 6ud" 6ud"es es ad6udicatin" cases are are not sub6ect to a claim o# le"al pla"iarism! ;urther, as #ound by the Supreme Court , the omission o# the ac'no$led"ment by &ustice del Castillo o# the three #orei"n authors arose #rom a clerical error! /t $as sho$n be#ore the Supreme Court that the researcher $ho )nali that in all, there is still an intent to ac'no$led"e and not ta'e such passa"es as that o# &ustice del Castillo+s o$n!
