Triste, Jr. v. Macaraig, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Federico Triste, Jr., a permanent appointee as Assistant Regional Director in the Commission on Audit (COA), was detailed and later appointed as Acting Assistant Minister of Comptrollership in the Ministry of Public Works and Highways (MPWH). Following the EDSA Revolution and President Corazon C. Aquino's Proclamation No. 1 requiring courtesy resignations, petitioner submitted two such resignations. Subsequently, Gregorio Alvarez was designated Officer-in-Charge, then appointed Assistant Minister, and later promoted to Undersecretary. Petitioner's courtesy resignation was formally accepted by the Minister of Public Works and Highways on August 4, 1986. Petitioner appealed this acceptance, but his appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Office of the President also denied his request for reinstatement, citing Alvarez's appointment and petitioner's receipt of retirement benefits. Procedural History: Petitioner's appeal to the Review Committee created under E.O. No. 17, Series of 1986, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. His subsequent appeal to the Office of the President was referred to the MPWH for comment, which ultimately led to the denial of his request for reinstatement. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was pending, but he simultaneously filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner sought to annul the acceptance of his resignation, his reinstatement to his former position, and to set aside the appointment of his successor. He argued that his courtesy resignation was not a complete act, was not accepted by competent authority, that the appointments of his successors were illegal, and that his termination and replacement were not effected within the one-year period prescribed by the Provisional Constitution.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner's courtesy resignation was a complete and effective act of resignation. Whether the petitioner's courtesy resignation was accepted by competent authority. Whether the appointment of Gregorio Alvarez and the designation of Proceso T. Gonzales as his successors were legal. Whether the petitioner may be deemed to have continued in office because his termination and replacement were not effected within one year from February 25, 1986, as per Article III, Section 2 of the Provisional Constitution.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of petitioner's request for reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity and effectivity of the courtesy resignation: The Court acknowledged that the courtesy resignation was involuntary and a derogation of the petitioner's right to security of tenure under the 1973 Constitution. However, this protection was removed by the Provisional Constitution of March 25, 1986. The Court held that the petitioner's tenure was effectively terminated when his successor, Alvarez, was designated and appointed, and crucially, when the petitioner applied for and received retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 1616. The Court stated that his application for retirement benefits validated his otherwise vitiated consent to his resignation, making it irrevocable. The Court famously stated, "He could not eat his cake and have it too." On the acceptance of resignation by competent authority: The petitioner argued that his resignation was not accepted by the President, the appointing authority. The Court rejected this, citing established jurisprudence (Villena vs. Sec. of Interior, Roque vs. Dir. of Lands, Angangco vs. Castillo, Noblejas vs. Salas, Federation of Free Workers & Allied Sugar Centrals Employees and Workers Union-FFW vs. Hon. Amado Inciong, et al.) that Department Secretaries are representatives of the President, and their official acts are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive unless disapproved. Therefore, Minister Mercado's acceptance was deemed the act of the President. On the legality of the appointments of successors: The petitioner contended that the replacement of Alvarez came after the one-year period from February 25, 1986. The Court clarified that the petitioner's tenure ended on August 4, 1986, upon the acceptance of his resignation, not upon the appointment of his successor. Furthermore, Alvarez's appointment by the President through her Executive Secretary on July 23, 1986, occurred before the February 25, 1987 deadline. The Court also noted that Alvarez's appointment was ratified by President Aquino on July 21, 1987. The reassignment of Proceso T. Gonzales did not render the position vacant, as Alvarez had been appointed and had taken his oath. On the one-year period under the Provisional Constitution: The Court found the petitioner's argument that his termination and replacement were not effected within one year to be incorrect. As stated above, his separation was effective upon the acceptance of his resignation on August 4, 1986. The Court reiterated that the Provisional Constitution stipulated that officials would continue in office until their successors were appointed and qualified within one year from February 25, 1986. The appointment of Alvarez on July 23, 1986, fell within this period. The Court also addressed the petitioner's plea to revert to his permanent COA position, stating it was untenable because by receiving retirement benefits, he irrevocably resigned from government service, and there was no showing that his former job was vacant.
Main Doctrine
A courtesy resignation, though initially involuntary and a derogation of security of tenure, becomes validated and irrevocable upon the acceptance of retirement benefits by the resigning official, thereby precluding any claim for reinstatement.