OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSEPH CEDRICK O. RUIZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 61, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT
“x x x.
While the term moral turpitude does not have one specific definition that lends itself to easy and ready application4, it has been defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in the performance of private and social duties that man owes to his fellow man or to society in general.5
Notably, jurisprudence has categorized the following acts as crimes involving moral turpitude: abduction with consent, bigamy, concubinage, smuggling, rape, attempted bribery, profiteering, robbery, murder, estafa, theft, illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, intriguing against honor, violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, perjury, forgery, direct bribery, frustrated homicide, adultery, arson, evasion of income tax, barratry, blackmail, bribery, duelling, embezzlement, extortion, forgery, libel, making fraudulent proof of loss on insurance contract, mutilation of public records, fabrication of evidence, offenses against pension laws, perjury, seduction under the promise of marriage, estafa, falsification of public document, and estafa thru falsification of public document.
To our mind, malversation – considering its nature – should not be categorized any differently from the above listed crimes. The act of embezzling public funds or property is immoral in itself; it is a conduct clearly contrary to the accepted standards of justice, honesty, and good morals.6
X x x.”