Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case arose from a statement issued by 37 professors from the University of the Philippines College of Law, titled "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." This statement was a response to allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation against an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court concerning a decision in the case of Vinuya, et al. v. Executive Secretary. The professors' statement criticized the Court's handling of the plagiarism allegations and the decision itself, which involved claims by "comfort women" seeking justice. Procedural History: The Supreme Court, through a Resolution dated October 19, 2010, directed the 37 professors to show cause why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for alleged violations of specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, including Canons 1, 11, and 13, and Rules 1.02 and 11.05. The professors submitted their explanations, arguing that their statement was an exercise of their freedom of speech and academic freedom, and that their intentions were to uphold the integrity of the Court. The Court reviewed these submissions, distinguishing the matter as a bar disciplinary proceeding rather than a contempt case. The Petition: The professors, through their submissions, essentially petitioned the Court to reconsider its adverse findings in the Show Cause Resolution and to dismiss the charges against them. They argued that their criticism was a legitimate exercise of free speech and academic freedom, aimed at ensuring the integrity of the legal system and judicial processes. They also requested a hearing and access to evidence related to the underlying plagiarism investigation. The Court, however, found most of the explanations unsatisfactory, reminding the professors of their duties as members of the Bar and officers of the Court, while excusing one professor who was not a member of the Philippine Bar and finding one compliance satisfactory. The Court denied the requests for a hearing and access to records of related proceedings.
Issue(s)
Does the Show Cause Resolution deny respondents their freedom of expression? Does the Show Cause Resolution violate respondents' academic freedom as law professors? Do the submissions of respondents satisfactorily explain why they should not be disciplined as Members of the Bar under Canons 1, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? Does the separate Compliance of Dean Leonen satisfactorily explain why he should not be disciplined as a Member of the Bar under Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03? Are respondents entitled to have the Show Cause Resolution set for hearing and to access the records of the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC)?
Ruling
The Court found the common compliance of 35 respondents and the separate compliance of Dean Leonen to be UNSATISFACTORY. The 35 law professors were reminded of their lawyerly duty to give due respect to the Court and were warned that similar acts in the future would be dealt with more severely. Dean Leonen was additionally ADMONISHED for failing to observe full candor and honesty in his dealings with the Court. The compliance of Prof. Raul T. Vasquez was found SATISFACTORY. Prof. Owen Lynch, not being a member of the Philippine Bar, was excused from the proceedings. The respondents' requests for a hearing and access to records were DENIED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Freedom of Expression): No, the Show Cause Resolution does not deny respondents their freedom of expression. The Supreme Court held that the right to criticize the judiciary is not absolute. For members of the Bar, this right is balanced against their sworn duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts. The Court clarified that the issue was not the criticism itself, but the 'manner of the criticism and the contumacious language' used, especially while the Vinuya case was sub judice. Citing jurisprudence like Salcedo v. Hernandez and In re: Almacen, the Court reiterated that intemperate, unfair, and irresponsible attacks that tend to obstruct the administration of justice are not protected speech and constitute professional misconduct. The respondents' actions ran contrary to their obligation as officers of the Court to uphold its dignity and not promote distrust in the justice system. On Issue 2 (Academic Freedom): No, the resolution does not violate their academic freedom. The Court ruled that academic freedom cannot be successfully invoked as a defense for contumacious conduct and speech that violates the Code of Professional Responsibility. Lawyers who teach law are considered engaged in the practice of law and are bound by their oath and ethical duties. Their actions as law professors must be measured against the same canons applicable to all members of the Bar. The Court stressed that law professors are expected to be exemplars of the entire Code of Professional Responsibility, not just selected portions thereof. On Issue 3 (Sufficiency of Compliance): No, the submissions were mostly unsatisfactory. The Court found the common compliance of 35 respondents unsatisfactory because their claim of good faith could only be mitigating, not an excuse, given the plain and undeniable nature of the offensive language used. The Court deemed it immaterial whether their views on the plagiarism issue were correct; the core issue was their contumacious speech and improper interference in a pending case. In contrast, the Court found Prof. Vasquez's compliance satisfactory due to his candor, straightforward account, and acknowledgment that he could have been more careful. Prof. Lynch was excused as he is not a member of the Philippine Bar. On Issue 4 (Dean Leonen's Compliance): No, Dean Leonen's compliance was unsatisfactory. The Court admonished him for failing to observe full candor and honesty under Canon 10. The Court found his submission of a 'reformatted' version of the statement, which was not a faithful reproduction of the actual signed document, to be a display of a lack of candor. His explanation that he relied on hearsay from his staff regarding Justice Mendoza's signature, and his admission that other professors had only verbally authorized him to be listed as signatories, was deemed tantamount to making it appear that persons participated in an act when they had not, which violates the duty of truthfulness to the Court. On Issue 5 (Right to a Hearing): No, respondents are not entitled to a hearing or access to the records of the other case. The Court clarified that the proceeding was a motu proprio administrative matter under Rule 139-B, not an indirect contempt case under Rule 71. In administrative proceedings, a formal, trial-type hearing is not mandatory. The essence of due process, which is the opportunity to be heard, was satisfied when they were required to file their compliance. The Court found no need for a hearing as the basis for the Show Cause Resolution was the language of the Statement itself, which was already of public record, and the records of the separate ethics case against Justice Del Castillo were irrelevant to their own liability for their language and conduct.
Main Doctrine
The constitutional right to freedom of expression and the principle of academic freedom enjoyed by members of the Bar, including law professors, are not absolute. These rights are circumscribed by the lawyer's sworn duty as an officer of the Court to uphold the Constitution and the laws, and to maintain respect for the courts and judicial officers. Intemperate, abusive, and contumacious language that tends to undermine the integrity of the judiciary or interfere with the administration of justice, especially concerning a pending case (sub judice), constitutes professional misconduct and is subject to disciplinary action. This standard applies with greater force to law professors, who are expected to be models of ethical conduct for the legal profession.