Zari vs.

Flores

Facts: On July 15, 1976, Hon. Judge Remegio Zari, through a letter
addressed to the Supreme Court, recommended the dismissal from the
service of Mr. Diosdado Flores as Deputy Clerk of Court. It was alleged in the
letter that Mr. Flores was convicted for libel, a crime involving moral
turpitude, on April 8, 1967.

Judge Zari also alleged that when the Mr. Flores applied for the
position of Deputy Clerk of Court, he submitted an affidavit dated June 10,
1969 which contains a statement "That I am a person of good moral
character and integrity and have no administrative, criminal or police
record."

In recommending the dismissal from service of Mr. Flores, Judge Zari

added the ground of Gross discourtesy to superior officers as manifested by
his uncalled for and unjustified use of strong and contemptuous
language in addressing the City Judges, when he wrote a letter, dated
March 11, 1976.

On the other hand, Mr. Flores answered the allegations that his
conviction for libel did not involve moral turpitude, and that the use of
strong language could not be considered contemptuous as he was merely
expressing the sentiments of an aggrieved employee who deserves a better
treatment from his superior.

The District Judge (Apostol) who conducted the investigation of the

administrative case recommended that Mr. Flores be separated from the
service on the ground that conviction for libel is a crime allegedly involving
moral turpitude and P.D. 807 (Civil Service Decree of the Philippines)
provides that one of the grounds for disciplinary action is conviction of a
crime involving moral turpitude.

Issue: w/n libel is a crime involving moral turpitude – No.

w/n conviction of crime of libel alone warrants dismissal of Mr.

Flores – No.

Ruling: The Court defines Moral Turpitude as any act done contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. It is an act of baseness,
vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his
fellow men, to society in general contrary to the accepted and customary
rule of right and duty between man and woman or conduct contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals

Moral Turpitude implies something immoral in itself, regardless of the

fact that it is punishable by law or not. It must not merely be mala
prohibita, but the act itself must be inherently immoral. The doing of
the act itself, and not its prohibition by statute fixes the moral turpitude.

Some of the particular crimes which have been held to involve moral
turpitude are adultery, concubinage, rape, arson, evasion of income tax,
barratry, bigamy, blackmail, bribery, criminal conspiracy to smuggle opium,
dueling, embezzlement, extortion, forgery, libel, making fraudulent proof of
loss on insurance contract, murder, mutilation of public records, fabrication
of evidence, offenses against pension laws, perjury, seduction under promise
of marriage, estafa, falsification of public document, estafa thru falsification
of public document.

However, the Court has impliedly held in the case of Burguete vs.
Mayor that the mere filing of an information for libel against a municipal
officer is not a sufficient ground for dispensing him. The same may be said
with regard to serious slander, which is another form of libel. Libel does
not necessarily involve moral turpitude.

Conviction of libel alone is not sufficient to warrant disciplinary

action, the respondent's conviction for libel shows his propensity to speak ill
of others. It is true that conviction for libel does not automatically
justify removal of a public officer. However, the fact of conviction for
libel of Mr. Flores, taken together with the letter he wrote to then
Executive City Judge Genovea, shows the tendency of the respondent to
malign people.

However, the dismissal of Mr. Flores is proper on the ground that his
sworn statement is not true and by interfering in the cases pending before
the sala of Judge Zari, which is a ground for serious disciplinary action and
severe disciplinary action respectively.