Bienvenido Nera Vs Paulino Garcia, 106 Phil 1031, G.R. No.

L-13160, January 30, 1960

Facts:
Petitioner Nera was at the time of his suspension, serving as clerk in the Maternity and
Children's Hospital. In the course of his employment, he served as manager and cashier of the
Maternity Employer's Cooperative Association, Inc.  On May 11, 1956,  he was charged with
malversation for allegedly misappropriating the sum of P12,636.21 belonging to the
association. Simplicio Balcos, husband of the suspended administrative officer and cashier of
the Maternity and Children's Hospital, named Gregoria Balcos, filed an administrative complaint
case then pending against him. On December 19, 1956, Nera received a communication from
respondent Director of Hospital suspending him from office as clerk of the Maternity and
Children's Hospital. This suspension carried the approval of respondent Garcia, Secretary of
Health. Petitioner sought for the annulment of the order of suspension on the ground that
assuming for a moment that petitioner were guilty of malversation or misappropriation of the
funds of the association, nevertheless, said irregularity had no connection with his duly as clerk
of the Maternity and Children's Hospital.

Issue: 
Whether or not suspension on the ground of dishonesty or misconduct under Section 694 of
the Revised Penal Code need have to be in relation to the performance of duty. 

Ruling:
No.  As to the holding of the trial court about dishonesty or misconduct in office having
connection with one's duties and functions in order to warrant punishment, this involves an
interpretation of Section 694 of the Revised Administrative Code. SEC. 694. Removal or
suspension. — No officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed or suspended except
for cause as provided by law. The President of the Philippines may suspend any chief or
assistant chief of a bureau or office and in the absence of special provision, any other officer
appointed by him, pending an investigation of his bureau or office. With the approval of the
proper head of department, the chief of a bureau in his bureau or under his authority pending
an investigation, if the charge against such subordinate or employee involves dishonesty,
oppression, or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty.

It will be observed that there is a comma after the words dishonesty and oppression, thereby
warranting the conclusion that only the phrase "grave misconduct or neglect "is qualified by the
words "in the performance of duty". In other words, dishonesty and oppression to warrant
punishment or dismissal, need not be committed in the course of them performance of duty by
the person charged. 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 force, they
affect his right to continue in office. 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
morals of the service."