Administrative liability is separate and distinct from penal or criminal liability.

"Xxx.

Finally, Salvador argues that her conviction and eventual discharge from probation presents another administrative case to be filed against her because to do so would defeat the purpose of the Probation Law45 which was to erase the effect of conviction and to restore civil rights that were lost or suspended. Suffice it to state that probation does not erase the effects and fact of conviction, but merely suspends the penalty imposed. While indeed the purpose of the Probation Law is to save valuable human material, it must not be forgotten that unlike pardon, probation does not obliterate the crime for which the person under probation has been convicted. The reform and rehabilitation of the probationer cannotjustify his retention in the government service.46 Furthermore, probation only affects the criminal liability of the accused, and not his administrative liabilities, if any. The Court once ruled in the case of Samalio vs. Court of Appeals47 that:

Finally, even if dismissal had been one of the accessory penalties of the principal penalty imposed upon petitioner in the criminal case, and even if the administrative case had been decided earlier than the criminal case, still the imposition of the penalty of dismissal could not have been suspended by the grant of probation.As petitioner himself contends, the criminal action is separate and distinct from the administrative case. And, if only for that reason, so is administrative liability separate and distinct from penal liability. Hence, probation affects only the criminal aspect of the case, not its administrative dimension.48 [Emphases supplied]

Xxx."

CECILIA PAGADUAN, Petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and REMA MARTIN SALVADOR, Respondents. G.R. No. 206379, November 19, 2014.