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 associatin 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 favour of
the petitioner. 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.

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.