Tadeo v. Daquiz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dominica C. Tadeo filed a sworn-letter complaint against Nelia F. Daquiz, a Staff Assistant I at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 105, Quezon City, for grave misconduct and dishonesty. The complaint alleged that Daquiz, despite being detailed to the Office of Court of Appeals Justice Cesar D. Francisco and subsequently ordered to report to the RTC, Baguio City, often visited her former office to conduct her ready-to-wear (RTW) business, uttered disparaging remarks, and remained in Quezon City despite being overdue for her assignment in Baguio City. Procedural History: The complaint was forwarded for appropriate action. Daquiz received warning letters regarding her absence without official leave (AWOL) since November 2, 1991, but did not comply. She requested to return to her regular assignment in Quezon City, citing separation from her children and interruption of her law studies. The Court Administrator inquired about dropping her from the service. A supplemental complaint was filed praying for her dismissal. Daquiz submitted an irrevocable resignation letter, citing inability to comply with the detail order due to family and study concerns. She was later found to be employed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) since August 1992. The Court En Banc referred the case for consulta. The Petition: The complainant prayed for the dismissal of respondent from the service, citing grave misconduct, dishonesty, and defiant acts, including willful defiance of Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 83-91, AWOL, seeking 'padreous' for transfer to BIR and reinstatement, and withdrawing salaries despite being AWOL.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Nelia F. Daquiz's resignation is operative and effective. Whether respondent's prolonged absence without leave constitutes abandonment of her position. Whether respondent's conduct warrants dismissal from judicial service.
Ruling
The Court dismissed Nelia F. Daquiz from the judicial service effective November 2, 1991, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and privileges, and with prejudice to her reinstatement or reemployment in any branch of the government. She was also directed to refund P11,526.15 representing salaries and personal economic relief allowances (PERA) received during her unauthorized absence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the operative effect of resignation: The Court held that respondent's resignation was inoperative and ineffective for lack of acceptance. Citing Gamboa v. Court of Appeals, the Court emphasized that a resignation requires an intention to relinquish, the act of relinquishment, and acceptance by competent authority. Given that Daquiz was aware of the administrative case against her, acceptance of her resignation became imperative. Her conduct, including continued receipt of salaries and transfer to another agency without formal acceptance of her resignation, demonstrated a disregard for the proper procedures and the public trust reposed in her. On abandonment of position: The Court found that respondent's unexplained and unauthorized absence without leave since November 2, 1991, constituted an abandonment of her position. This prolonged absence, coupled with her defiance of administrative orders and resolutions, demonstrated a lack of faithfulness, devotion, and dedication to duty required of public officials. Her actions indicated that she treated her position as a matter of personal convenience rather than a public trust, which is contrary to the mandate of upholding public interest over personal interest. On dismissal from service: The Court concluded that respondent's actuations did not measure up to the standard criterion of a public servant. Her flagrant disregard of the Court's show cause resolution, her failure to report for duty as directed, and her unauthorized transfer to another agency without permission from her employer rendered her unfit to continue serving in the judiciary. The Court reiterated that the administration of justice is a sacred and onerous task, requiring utmost dedication, loyalty, and devotion from all involved.
Main Doctrine
A public office is a public trust, and all public officers must be accountable to the people. An employee's resignation is inoperative and ineffective for lack of acceptance by competent authority, especially when the employee is aware of pending administrative charges. Unexplained and unauthorized absence without leave constitutes abandonment of position, rendering the employee unfit to continue serving in the judiciary.