The Court Administrator v. Lorenzo San Andres
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An administrative complaint was filed against Lorenzo San Andres, Officer-in-Charge of Branch 57, Regional Trial Court, Angeles City, based on his conviction on August 2, 1985, in Criminal Case No. 1408 for Illegal Recruitment. The Regional Trial Court of Pampanga found respondent San Andres and a co-accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Articles 16 and 25, in relation to Article 39(b), P.D. No. 442, and Section 2, Rule VI, Book I, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code. They were sentenced to suffer imprisonment of six (6) years and a fine of P25,000.00 each, and ordered to pay jointly and severally the amounts stated as reimbursement for fees paid by the complainants to Eagles Construction and Development Corporation. Respondent San Andres availed of the Probation Law (P.D. 968). Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator initiated the case motu proprio based on the conviction. Respondent was directed to file an answer, which he did, alleging he was a victim of circumstances due to financial setbacks and was induced to join the recruitment. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended dismissal from service due to conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude and for concealing his conviction when accomplishing his information sheet. The case was referred to an Executive Judge for investigation. The investigating judge found that respondent San Andres answered 'No' to the question of whether he had been convicted of a law violation in his information sheet dated May 5, 1980. At that time, he had not yet been convicted as the decision was rendered on August 2, 1985. The investigating judge noted that respondent did not conceal his conviction after being asked to explain and that his probation order did not impose a penalty of disqualification from holding public office. The investigating judge recommended dismissal of the administrative case. The Petition: The Court Administrator filed an administrative complaint against respondent Lorenzo San Andres, Officer-in-Charge, Branch 57, Regional Trial Court, Angeles City, for alleged conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude and concealment of such conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent committed misrepresentation when he answered 'No' to the question regarding conviction in his information sheet for re-employment. Whether the crime of illegal recruitment, as committed by the respondent, involves moral turpitude warranting dismissal from the service.
Ruling
The administrative case against respondent Lorenzo San Andres is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of misrepresentation in the information sheet: The Court found that respondent San Andres had not yet been convicted of illegal recruitment when he sought re-employment in the Judiciary in May 1980. The decision convicting him was rendered on August 2, 1985. Therefore, his answer of 'No' to the question of conviction in his information sheet was truthful at the time he made it. He could not have known of a conviction that had not yet occurred. The presumption of innocence under the 1973 Constitution was applicable at that time. Consequently, he did not commit any misrepresentation, and this did not constitute a ground for disciplinary action under P.D. 807. On the issue of moral turpitude and dismissal from service: The Court agreed with the investigating judge that the crime of illegal recruitment, as committed by the respondent, should not be held against him as it did not involve moral turpitude. The Court defined moral turpitude as an act that is inherently immoral, not merely mala prohibita. The respondent was a volunteer employee of the recruitment agency, receiving no compensation, and had only hoped to be deployed for overseas employment. This indicated that he was also a victim of unscrupulous individuals. The penalty imposed by the trial court did not carry with it disqualification to hold public office. Furthermore, the grant of probation suspended the imposition of the sentence and necessarily the accessory penalties. The Court cited Baclayon vs. Mutia to support the principle that probation suspends the imposition of sentence and accessory penalties, and that dismissal from service for a crime not involving moral turpitude, especially when probation was granted, would be contrary to compassion.
Main Doctrine
A conviction for illegal recruitment, particularly when the accused acted as a volunteer employee with no compensation and with the hope of personal deployment, may not necessarily involve moral turpitude, and dismissal from service may not be warranted, especially if probation was granted and the employee had no prior conviction at the time of re-employment.