Republic v. Singun
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Winston T. Singun, former Chief Trade and Industry Development Specialist of DTI-RO2, Cagayan Province, initially signified his intention to apply for an 8½ month leave of absence and to retire on August 1, 2000. His request was denied. He then filed applications for leave and resignation, with the latter to be effective on January 14, 2000. Regional Director Jose Hipolito approved the application for leave and resignation. On January 14, 2000, the DTI-RO2 received a Memorandum Order detailing respondent to another office effective January 17, 2000. On the same date, respondent sent a letter to Director Hipolito stating he was reconsidering his resignation and decided to wait for early retirement qualifications. Director Hipolito sought an opinion from the CSC-RO2 regarding the effectivity of respondent's resignation, and CSC-RO2 ruled that respondent was considered resigned effective January 14, 2000, as his withdrawal letter required approval. Director Hipolito informed Undersecretary Ernesto Ordoñez that respondent had resigned, and that respondent had accepted employment with the Philippine Rural Banking Corporation (PRBC) during his leave. Respondent countered that his resignation was made under duress and was ineffective due to lack of notice of acceptance. Procedural History: The CSC-RO2 initially ruled that respondent was considered resigned effective January 14, 2000. However, upon respondent's motion for reconsideration, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) reversed this, declaring respondent's resignation inoperative and inefficacious and ordering payment of his salaries and benefits from January 1, 2000. The CSC denied petitioner's subsequent motions for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC's ruling, finding substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the resignation was inoperative and inefficacious, and that the detail order did not amount to abandonment of office. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Trade and Industry, filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, questioning the Court of Appeals' decision.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent validly resigned from DTI-RO2 effective January 14, 2000. Whether the detail order issued by Undersecretary Ordoñez effectively withdrew respondent's resignation.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The temporary restraining order enjoining the Civil Service Commission from enforcing its decision and respondent from assuming office is lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent validly resigned from DTI-RO2 effective January 14, 2000: The Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and the Civil Service Commission that respondent's resignation was incomplete and inoperative. For a resignation to be operative and effective, it requires not only an intention to relinquish and an act of relinquishment, but crucially, an acceptance by the competent authority. In this jurisdiction, acceptance is necessary, and without it, the resignation is ineffective, leaving the officer in office. The final and conclusive act of acceptance is the notice of acceptance given to the resigning official. The records did not show that respondent was duly informed of the acceptance of his resignation, nor did he receive a copy of the memorandum accepting his resignation. Therefore, the resignation was not complete and operative. On Whether the detail order issued by Undersecretary Ordoñez effectively withdrew respondent's resignation: Since the resignation was not finally and conclusively accepted due to the lack of notice to the respondent, the tender of resignation was still revocable. As the resignation was not effective, the respondent could validly withdraw it. Consequently, there was no need for Director Hipolito to accept the withdrawal of resignation, as there was no valid acceptance of the application for resignation in the first place. Undersecretary Ordoñez's detail order was therefore validly issued, as respondent had not effectively resigned from DTI-RO2 at that time. The Court also noted that respondent's alleged employment with PRBC was during his approved leave of absence and did not constitute abandonment of office, especially given his subsequent actions to contest the resignation.
Main Doctrine
A resignation from public office is operative and effective only upon acceptance by the competent authority, and the final act of acceptance is the notice thereof to the resigning official. Until then, the resignation is revocable.