Case Digest (G.R. No. L-13160)
Facts:
Bienvenido Nera v. Paulino Garcia, Secretary of Health, and Tranquilino Elicano, Director of Hospitals, G.R. No. L-13160, January 30, 1960, the Supreme Court En Banc, Montemayor, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Bienvenido Nera, a civil service eligible, was serving as clerk in the Maternity and Children's Hospital (a government institution under the Bureau of Hospitals and the Department of Health) when he also acted as manager and cashier of the Maternity Employee's Cooperative Association, Inc., an association composed of hospital employees. On May 11, 1956, a criminal information for malversation (Criminal Case No. 35447) was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila accusing Nera of misappropriating P12,636.21 belonging to the association.
Some months after the criminal case was filed, Simplicio Balcos (husband of Gregoria Balcos, an administrative officer and cashier of the hospital) lodged an administrative complaint against Nera based on the pending criminal charge. Acting Executive Officer Antonio Rodriguez (for the absent Director of Hospitals) required Nera to explain within seventy-two hours why he should not be summarily dismissed; the period was extended to December 20, 1956. On December 19, 1956, before Nera filed his administrative answer, he received a suspension order from the Director of Hospitals, effective upon receipt, with the approval of Secretary Paulino Garcia.
Nera sought intervention from the PCAC, which recommended lifting the suspension; respondents did not follow that recommendation and denied reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a special civil action for prohibition, certiorari and mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking to restrain respondents from proceeding with the administrative investigation until the criminal case was terminated, to annul the suspension order, and to compel lifting the suspension. The trial court rendered judgment on October 30, 1957, holding the suspension illegal (reasoning that suspension deprived petitioner of the oppo...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was petitioner Nera's preventive suspension illegal for violating his right to due process because it was imposed before he filed an answer to the administrative complaint?
- Did the alleged misappropriation give respondents authority to suspend Nera under Section 694 of the Revised Administrative Code (as clarified by Section 34 of R.A. No. 2260), even though the alleged dishonesty occurred in relation to a private employees' cooperative rather than directly i...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)