A.M. No. P-89-345; May 31, 1991
The Court Administrator, complainant, vs. Lorenzo San Andres, Officer-in-Charge, Branch 57, Regional Trial Court, Angeles City, respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case arose from the criminal conviction of respondent Lorenzo San Andres, a court stenographer and Officer-in-Charge, for Illegal Recruitment under Criminal Case No. 1408. The Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, in a decision dated August 2, 1985, found San Andres guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment and a fine. He subsequently availed of probation under P.D. 968. The Office of the Court Administrator initiated this administrative proceeding motu proprio based on that conviction, alleging it involved moral turpitude warranting dismissal under P.D. 807. A further charge was that San Andres concealed this conviction when he sought re-employment in the judiciary in May 1980.
In his defense, San Andres explained he was a victim of financial hardship, serving as an uncompensated volunteer for the recruitment agency with the mere hope of securing overseas employment himself. The case was referred to an Executive Judge for investigation, who found that on the relevant 1980 employment form, San Andres truthfully answered “No” to a question asking if he had ever been convicted, as his conviction occurred only in 1985. The investigator also noted San Andres readily admitted his conviction when later required to explain by the Court.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Lorenzo San Andres should be administratively dismissed from service based on his criminal conviction for illegal recruitment and an alleged concealment of his criminal record.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative case. On the charge of concealment, the Court agreed with the investigating judge that there was no misrepresentation. When San Andres accomplished his information sheet in May 1980, he had not yet been convicted; the judgment of conviction was rendered only in August 1985. The question on the form pertained solely to prior convictions, not to pending charges. Therefore, his negative answer was truthful and cannot be a ground for disciplinary action.
Regarding the conviction itself, the Court held that the crime of illegal recruitment as committed by San Andres did not involve moral turpitude. Citing jurisprudence, moral turpitude implies an act inherently immoral, not merely mala prohibita. The circumstances, as established in the criminal case and the investigation, showed San Andres was an uncompensated volunteer who joined the agency hoping to be deployed abroad himself, effectively making him a victim of the scheme. His actions lacked the inherent depravity or malicious intent characteristic of crimes involving moral turpitude. Consequently, his conviction, for which he had already undergone probation, did not provide a valid basis for his dismissal from the judiciary.