Bhenz Bryle Niňo M.

Tomilap
Atty. Fr. Dan de los Angeles

LAW ON PUBLIC CORPORATION - NOVEMBER 20, 2020 ASSIGNMENT

1. Why is Illegal Recruitment deemed by the SC as not constituting a crime

involving moral turpitude? Cite your legal basis.

Several cases have ruled that the crime of illegal recruitment is a crime that does
not constitute moral turpitude, but it is in the case of The Court Administrator vs.
Lorenzo San Andres (A.M. No. P-89-345; May 31, 1991) where the Supreme Court
ratiocinated the reason as to why. The case involves a volunteer employee who worked
for a recruitment agency, falling as a victim in an illegal recruitment scheme. The Court
ruled that since the crime of illegal recruitment is ordinarily an act which occurs in the
ordinary course of business, it is not in itself an evil act, were it not for the special law
prohibiting it.

Moral turpitude contemplates an act that is immortal in itself, irrespective of the

fact that it is being punished by law or not. The Bouvier’s Law Dictionary describes it as
a vile act in the private and social duties which man owes to his fellowmen or to society
at large. It is not the prohibition by statute but the doing of the act itself which fixes
moral turpitude. Ever since time immemorial, when man engaged in economic
production, the practice of recruiting workers has always existed. The only time it
became a violation of law is during contemporary times, when it is done without the
required license. Hence, it cannot be considered a mala in se act, but rather, simply
mala prohibita.

It was in Teves vs. COMELEC (GR No. 180363; April 28, 2009) where the
Supreme Court made an extensive synthesis about moral turpitude. It ruled that, in
determining whether a crime is a crime involving moral turpitude or not, it is essential to
determine first whether such crime is categorized as a mala in se or mala prohibita.
Since illegal recruitment is a mala prohibita, illegal recruitment cannot be considered as
a crime involving moral turpitude.