Nera v. Garcia G.R. No. L-13160. January 30, 1960

Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Nera v. Garcia G.R. No. L-13160. January 30, 1960

 Facts: 

Nera served as clerk in the Maternity and Children’s Hospital, a government institution under the supervision of the Bureau of Hospitals and the Department of Health. He also served as manager and cashier of the Maternity Employer’s Cooperative Association, Inc. Having hold of the positions, the fund of the association is supposedly under his control. On May 11, 1956, he was charged before the Court of First Instance of Manila with malversation for allegedly misappropriating a certain amount of money which belongs to the association. After a few months, a certain Simplicio Balcos, filed an administrative complaint case against Nera. Nera was suspended as clerk of the said hospital, as approved by respondent Garcia, Secretary of Health. The petitioner asked PCAC to intervene on his behalf. PCAC recommended respondents to lift the suspension of the petitioner. Respondents did not grant the lifting of suspension. The petitioner asked for reconsideration but was still denied. The CFI ruled in favor of the petitioner Nera. As a result, respondents filed an appeal to the decision of the CFI. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition for prohibition, certiorari, and mandamus to restrain respondents from proceeding with the administrative case until the termination of the criminal case and annul the suspension and to compel respondents to lift the suspension.

 

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner was illegally suspended thus, he must be reinstated in office and pay back his salary

 

Held: Decision of CFI reversed.

 

Ratio: There are two relevant laws outlined by the Supreme Court in this case. First is the Sec. 694 of the Administrative Code, entitled Removal or Suspension which states that suspension is applicable “if the charge against such subordinate or employee involves dishonesty, oppression, or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty.” According to the Supreme Court, because of the use of the comma, dishonesty and oppression need not be committed in performance of duty.

 

On the other hand, the other law involved is the Sec. 34 of Civil Service Act which is entitled “Preventive Suspension” which states that it is applicable “if the charge against such officer, or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct, or to believe that the performance of duty, or if there are strong reason to believe that the respondent is guilty of charges which would warrant his removal from the service.” According to the Supreme Court, with the use of comma, the charges of dishonesty and oppression or grave misconduct need not be committed in the performance of duty – it is only applicable if neglect is committed in performance of duty.

 

The Supreme Court held that the alleged misappropriation involved in the criminal case is not entirely disconnected with the office of the petitioner. Even though Maternity Employee’s Cooperative Association, which owns the funds, said to have been misappropriated, is a private entity, it is still an association composed of the employees of the Maternity Children’s Hospital where petitioner was serving as an employee. Moreover, if petitioner was designated to and occupied the position of manager and cashier of said association, it was because he was an employee of the Maternity and Children’s Hospital. The contention though indirect, and, in the opinion of some, rather remote, exists and is there.

 

It will be noticed that it introduces a small change into Section 694 of the Revised Administrative Code by placing a comma after the words "grave misconduct," so that the phrase "in the performance of duty" instead of qualifying "grave misconduct or neglect", as it did under Section 694 of the Revised Administrative Code, now qualifies only the last word "neglect", thereby making clear the legislative intent that to justify suspension, when the person charged is guilty merely of neglect, the same must be in the performance of his duty; but that when he is charged with dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct, these need have no relation to the performance of duty. This is readily understandable. If a Government officer or employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of character are not connected with his office, they affect his right to continue in office. The Government cannot well tolerate in its service a dishonest official, even if he performs his duties correctly and well, because by reason of his government position, he is given more and ample opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow men, even against offices and entities of the Government other than the office where he is employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys and possesses a certain influence and power which renders the victims of his grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and actuations. As the Solicitor General well pointed out in his brief, "the private life of , an employee cannot be segregated from his public life. Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the service."

 

StatCon maxim: The qualifying effect of a word or phrase may be confined to its last antecedent if the latter is separated by a comma from the other antecedents.