DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Decision dated May 23, 2019 and Resolution dated June 27, 2019 of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?
PICCIO ALLEGED THAT HRET GRAVELY ABUSES ITS DISCRETION BY COMMITTING MOSAIC PLAGIARISM.
THE COURT SAID THERE WAS NO PLAGIARISM.
Piccio submits that the assailed Decision is an “obnoxious example of simple and mosaic plagiarism. “207 He quotes portions of the assailed Decision and compares them to quoted portions of Vergara’s Verified Answer and Memorandum, and concludes that as they are the same, the BRET had committed “mosaic plagiarism/patchwork plagiarism.”208 He submits that this is “unacceptable, unethical[,] and open[s] [the BRET] to suspicion as to its fairness, impartiality[,] and integrity.” 209 He alleges that “such callous and dishonest conduct endangers the credibility and integrity of the Tribunal,”210 and then cites the case of In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, Etc., Against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo211 (In re Del Castillo).
The Court rejects these submissions.Foremost, it bears stressing that the charge of plagiarism in the In re Del Castillo case cited by Piccio was dismissed for lack of merit. In essence, the Court found therein that Justice Del Castillo (and his researcher) lacked any motive or reason for omitting attribution for the lifted passages to their authors.212 The Court stressed the element of fraudulent intent in plagiarism which it defined as ‘”to take (ideas, writings, etc.) from (another) and pass them off as one’s own.’ The passing off of the work of another as one’s mvn is thus an indispensable element ofplagiarism.
In the subsequent Resolution of the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in In re Del Castillo,214 the Court had occasion to clarify and distinguish judges from the academe where the element of malicious intent in plagiarism is disregarded – in the academe, original scholarship is highly valued because the writing is intended to earn for the student an academic degree, honor or distinction. In contrast, court decisions are not written to earn merit as an original piece of work or art. Rather, deciding disputes is a service rendered for the public good.2 15
Moreover, as accuracy of words in law is foremost, the tendency to copy of judges and lawyers is explicable. Hence, the Court recognized the right of judges to use legal materials which belong to the public domain, even without attribution, including liftings from a party’s pleading.
WHAT WAS THE CONTENTION OF PICCIO AGAINST VERGARA?
THAT VERGARA DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RA 9225 FOR REAQUISITION OF FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP.
SUPREME COURT SAID THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH PICCIO AND THAT HE UTTERLY PROVED HIS CONTENTION.
In light of the above discussion, petitioners before the HRET clearly and utterly failed to prove their assertion that Vergara did not comply with the requirements of R.A. 9225 for the re-acquisition of her Filipino citizenship. All of the evidence they adduced have been, and are, debunked by contrary evidence presented by Vergara and the relevant laws.
……….
Nevertheless, Vergara, while not carrying any burden of evidence as the burden of proof had not shifted from Piccio, proved, by sufficient and substantial evidence, that she had duly taken her oath and duly executed an affidavit of renunciation in compliance with the requirements ofR.A. 9225.
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 