Title
Court Administrator vs. San Andres
Case
A.M. No. P-89-345
Decision Date
May 31, 1991
Court dismissed case against San Andres; no misrepresentation, no moral turpitude in illegal recruitment, probation allowed continued employment.
illegal recruitment
financial setbacks
dismissal
A

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-89-345)

Initiation of the Administrative Complaint and Respondent’s Answer

The Court Administrator acted on the criminal decision in Criminal Case No. 1408 and commenced disciplinary proceedings against the respondent. On August 10, 1989, the respondent was ordered to file an answer/explanation. In his answer dated August 30, 1989, the respondent explained, among others, that he had been induced to join his co-accused in recruiting workers for overseas employment due to extreme financial setbacks and an impending foreclosure of his real estate mortgage with the Social Security System. He maintained that his participation resulted from circumstances rather than a deliberate intent to engage in illegal recruitment.

Administrative Memorandum and the Court’s Referral for Investigation

After the answer was submitted, the Court Administrator issued a memorandum dated December 7, 1989 recommending the respondent’s dismissal from the service and the forfeiture of retirement benefits. The recommendation rested on two grounds: first, that the respondent’s conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude carried the penalty of dismissal under P.D. 807; and second, that the respondent acted with manifest bad faith, deceit, and deliberate intent to hide the fact of being charged or convicted of a crime when he accomplished his information sheet for employment in the judiciary.

Given the “consequential effects” of the administrative case, and to determine the respondent’s liability, the Court—exercising its disciplinary powers—resolved on September 12, 1990 to refer the matter to the Executive Judge Antonio Descallar, Regional Trial Court, Angeles City for investigation, report, and recommendation.

Investigating Judge’s Report on the Alleged Concealment

The investigating judge submitted his report on November 22, 1990. He noted that the investigation was first set for October 16, 1990 but was cancelled because the investigating judge had to travel to Ozamis City. The respondent appeared at the hearing on November 15, 1990, presenting documentary evidence marked exhibits.

Central to the investigating judge’s findings was the interpretation of Exhibit 1, particularly item number 27 on the reverse page, which asked whether the respondent had ever been convicted for violating any law, decree, ordinance, or regulations by any court or tribunal, and whether he had been convicted by military, naval, or constabulary tribunal or found guilty of an administrative offense. The investigating judge reported that the respondent had encircled “No” to the first question. At the time the respondent answered the information sheet on May 5, 1980, he had not yet been convicted because the RTC decision dated August 2, 1985—the basis for the criminal conviction—had not yet been issued. Thus, the investigating judge held that the respondent “could not have known” of any eventual conviction on May 5, 1980. He further reasoned that the question required disclosure of conviction, not merely the existence of a charge.

The investigating judge also stated that, in his explanation dated August 30, 1989 (part of the record), the respondent admitted his eventual conviction and described the circumstances leading to it. He concluded that after being required to explain by the Office of the Court Administrator, the respondent did not conceal or attempt to hide that he had been convicted. While the investigating judge recognized that the respondent did not immediately inform the Supreme Court after conviction, he credited the respondent’s explanation that he promptly applied for probation, consulted the probation officer regarding whether any issue would arise, and was advised that there was nothing wrong.

Treatment of Probation and the Assessing of Disciplinary Consequences

In support of leniency, the investigating judge cited Baclayon v. Mutia, 129 SCRA 148, where a public teacher convicted of serious oral defamation was allowed to continue teaching by modifying probation-related conditions. The investigating judge emphasized the principle articulated in that case that an order granting probation is not a sentence, but rather suspends the imposition of sentence, making it an interlocutory, conditional order that leads to discharge upon compliance with conditions.

Applying that reasoning, the investigating judge argued against dismissal on account of the conviction. He noted that the penalty imposed by the trial court did not carry disqualification to hold public office. He also referenced Civil Service Law, P.D. No. 807, Section 86, Paragraph 10, which provides for removal from service upon conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, and then proceeded to analyze whether the respondent’s offense constituted such a crime.

The Investigating Judge’s Moral Turpitude Analysis

The investigating judge opined that recruitment of persons for employment was not in itself an evil, a malum in se; rather, illegality attached only when recruitment was done without the required license. He defined moral turpitude as involving baseness, vileness, or depravity in private and social duties contrary to accepted rules of right and duty, drawing from Bouvier’s Law Dictionary.

He further maintained that moral turpitude must attach only to acts mala in se, and not to those made illegal merely by prohibition based on public policy. He also quoted the trial court’s factual appreciation that both SAN ANDRES and MIRANDA were volunteer employees later made officers of the Eagles Construction and Development Corporation, that SAN ANDRES received no compensation, and that he joined hoping he would be deployed for overseas employment. The investigating judge read these circumstances as favorable in assessing penalty.

On the basis of these considerations, the investigating judge recommended dismissal of the administrative case and permitting the respondent to continue serving as court stenographer under a reappointment already approved prior to his conviction.

Court’s Ruling on the Allegation of Misrepresentation or Concealment

The Court agreed with the investigating judge. It held that the case against the respondent should be dismissed. The Court found that it was established that, when the respondent sought re-employment in the Judiciary in May 1980, he had not yet been convicted in Criminal Case No. 1408. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the respondent did not misrepresent himself when he answered the information sheet question on item number 27, because the question in effect sought disclosure of conviction only. The Court therefore concluded that the alleged concealment did not constitute a ground for disciplinary action under P.D. 807.

Court’s Ruling on Moral Turpitude and the Nature of Illegal Recruitment

On the moral turpitude issue, the Court found no adequate reason to disturb the investigating judge’s submission. The Court emphasized the controlling distinction in moral turpitude jurisprudence: moral turpitude implies an act that is inherently immoral; it must not be merely mala prohibita, where illegalit

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms