This is another case where the dismissal of a court employee is sought because he is found guilty of a crime which is allegedly involving moral turpitude. The issue presented here is whether illegal recruitment is a crime involving moral turpitude.
This case involved Leo, a court stenographer who had trained himself and had been engaged as such through all his years in government service. Due to extreme financial setbacks coupled by an impending foreclosure of his real estate mortgage, he was forced to seek greener pastures and was induced to join a recruitment agency (EDC) as volunteer employee receiving no compensation for recruiting workers for jobs abroad, in the hope that he would be among the first to be sent to Nigeria for employment.
Unfortunately, it was not meant to be for Leo. He suffered more setbacks and was even included among those charged with illegal recruitment together with the officers of the EDC. Thus sometime in May, 1980 he was forced to seek reemployment in court. In item no. 27 of his information sheet dated May 5, 1980, Leo was asked to answer “yes or no” to the question of whether he has ever been convicted for violating any law, decree, ordinance or regulation by any court or tribunal. Leo encircled “no” for his answer.
So he was reemployed and even became Officer in Charge of the RTC Branch. Unfortunately, on August 2, 1895, the decision in the illegal recruitment case came out convicting Leo and a co-accused of illegal recruitment and sentencing them to 6 years imprisonment and fine of P25,000. The penalty imposed however does not carry with it disqualification to hold public office. Thus Leo was able to avail of the provisions of the Probation Law thereby suspending the imposition of his sentence.
But in August 1989 the Office of the Court Administrator motu propio filed an administrative case seeking the dismissal of Leo because of his concealment of the charge and his conviction for illegal recruitment which is allegedly a crime involving moral turpitude. Should Leo be dismissed?
No. Leo has not yet been convicted of illegal recruitment when he sought re-employment in the Judiciary sometime in May 1980. He did not commit any misrepresentation when he answered “no” to item No. 27 in his Information Sheet on May 5, 1980 because he was not yet convicted of the crime at that date. The decision came out only on August 2, 1985 so he could not have known it on May, 5, 1980. Besides, the question did not ask whether or not he had been charged, but asked of “conviction” only. So his answer does not constitute a ground for dismissal.
Leo’s conviction for the crime of illegal recruitment should also be not held against him because such crime is not one involving moral turpitude. Moral turpitude implies something immoral in itself regardless of the fact that it is punishable by law or not. It must not be merely prohibited by law (mala prohibita), but the act itself must be inherently immoral. The crimes involving moral turpitude do not include such acts whose illegality lies only in the fact of their being prohibited by law but are not of themselves immoral. The undisputed fact that Leo was a volunteer employee of the recruitment agency, receiving no compensation, and had only hoped that he would be deployed for overseas employment readily shows that he himself was a victim of the unscrupulous acts of others who had capitalized on his service, not aware that he would be prejudiced at the end. Accordingly the case against Leo should be dismissed (Court Administrator vs. San Andres, A.M. No. P-89-345, May 31, 1991, 197, SCRA 704).
* * *
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net