If AI (artificial intelligence) is capable of making a joke, then it just pulled off a huge prank on two unsuspecting lawyers.
Under threat of being hauled before the Supreme Court (SC) for an apparent violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, lawyer Iryl Boco, defense counsel for a defendant in 11 pork barrel scam cases, admitted to the Sandiganbayan seventh division that the pleadings she filed on behalf of her client was prepared by a colleague with a little help from “artificial intelligence tools” in researching case law.
The pleadings – Omnibus Motions (To Reinstate Appeal, to Recall Writ of Execution, and To Reinstate Bond) – were filed in the cases of People v. Rodolfo G. Valencia et al. (six cases), People v. Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon et al. (two cases), and People v. Antonio Y. Ortiz et al. (three cases) for former Technology Resource Center deputy director general Dennis Cunanan.
The motions invoked multiple authorities, referenced choice quotes, and even provided case numbers and dates to pass muster.
However, when verified by the justices of the anti-graft court’s Seventh Division, the jurisprudence and pronouncements cited were nowhere to be found — at least not in court records or legal documents.
“Considering that several authorities cited in the motions were either non-existent or did not contain the quoted portions cited, and had incorrect docket numbers and dates, the court directed Atty. Boco to show cause and explain why the misquotations should not be referred to the Supreme Court for an apparent violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, specifically under Section 8, Canon If on Propriety,” the Sandiganbayan noted.
In her Compliance and Explanation, the defense lawyer apologized to the court and disclosed that while she filed the motions as counsel of record, it was a former counsel of the client who drafted the motions in full.
The court’s resolution identified the lawyer as Atty. Je Froilan Clerigo based on Atty. Boco’s written explanation.
In affixing her signature on the pleadings, Atty. Boco said she believed that their contents were “faithful and accurate” but acknowledged that she failed to do a thorough review.
“Atty. Boco recognized that she came up short in her legal duties to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the words and citations in the pleadings. With profuse apologies, Atty. Boco committed in her future endeavors to uphold the ethical standards of the legal profession,” the court noted in its resolution.
Since the inaccuracies in the motions were caught early, the Sandiganbayan just issued a reminder to “fact-check any AI-generated research and to strictly observe proper citations of legal authorities.”
“As no prejudice was caused with the outright discovery of such misquotations from the (non-existent) cases, the three Compliance and Explanation dated July 24, 2025 filed in all the captioned cases, are noted,” the Sandiganbayan said.
