Case Digest (A.M. No. P-89-345)
Facts:
The Court Administrator v. Lorenzo San Andres, A.M. No. P-89-345, May 31, 1991, Supreme Court First Division, Medialdea, J., writing. The complainant was the Court Administrator and the respondent was Lorenzo San Andres, Officer‑in‑Charge, Branch 57, Regional Trial Court, Angeles City.
The administrative matter arose from the conviction entered on August 2, 1985 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, San Fernando, Pampanga in Criminal Case No. 1408 (People v. Amable R. Aguiluz V, et al.) which found respondent San Andres guilty of violating provisions of P.D. No. 442 (illegal recruitment) and sentenced him to imprisonment and fines; the RTC decision also ordered restitution to certain victims. After conviction, San Andres availed himself of probation under P.D. 968.
Acting motu proprio pursuant to a resolution of this Court, the Office of the Court Administrator filed the instant administrative complaint based on the RTC conviction, directing respondent to explain the charges (letter dated August 10, 1989). In his answer (August 30, 1989) San Andres explained his financial difficulties and asserted he was a victim of circumstance and not a schemer.
The Office of the Court Administrator, by memorandum (December 7, 1989), recommended respondent’s dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits under P.D. No. 807 (Civil Service Law) on the ground that his conviction involved moral turpitude and that he had concealed his conviction in his personnel information sheet. Given the gravity of the consequences, the Court, in aid of its disciplinary powers, referred the case for investigation, report and recommendation to Executive Judge Antonio Descallar, R.T.C., Angeles City (resolution dated September 12, 1990).
The investigating judge held hearings, received documentary evidence and reported (November 22, 1990) that (a) when respondent answered his employment information sheet on May 5, 1980 he circled “No” to the question whether he had ever been convicted because the conviction was only rendered on August 2, 1985; (b) the question asked only about convictions, not charges; (c) respondent had not concealed the conviction after it occurred — he applied for probation and later explained the matter to the Court Administrator’s office; and (d) the offense of recruitment, as committed by respondent who was an uncompensated volunteer officer of the agency, did not necessarily involve moral turpitude. The investigating judge relied on Baclayon v. Mutia, 129 SCRA 148, and recommended dismissal of the administrative case.
The Supreme Court, upon review of the report and records, agreed with the investigating judge’...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Lorenzo San Andres commit misrepresentation or concealment of a conviction when he answered “No” to the question on his personnel information sheet regarding prior convictions at the time he sought re‑employment in May 1980?
- Does respondent’s conviction for illegal recruitment constitute a crime involving moral turpitude sufficient to warrant dismissal under P.D. N...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)