G.R. No.

149356, March 14,

2008
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
represented by the Department of
Trade and Industry, Petitioner, vs.
WINSTON T. SINGUN, Respondent.

FACTS:

Petitioner Republic is represented by the

DTI-RO2. Respondent was the former Chief
Trade and Industry Development Specialist of
DTI-RO2, Cagayan Province.

In a letter, respondent wrote RD Hipolito

signifying his intention to apply for an 8½
month LoA. Respondent also signified his
intention to retire from the service on 1
August 2000. Subsequently, respondent filed
his application for LoA and early retirement,
but was denied by RD Hipolito.

Respondent again filed an application for LoA

and resignation. In a memorandum, RD
Hipolito endorsed the application to ASec
Maglaya for comment.

Without waiting for ASec Maglaya’s

comment, respondent again filed an
application for LoA but for a shorter period,
and also signified his intention to resign
“effective at the close of office hours on 14
January 2000.” According to RD Hipolito, he
immediately approved respondent’s
application for LoA and resignation and he
reiterated said approval in a memorandum
dated the same day. In a letter, RD Hipolito
also notified RD Soria of the CSC -RO2 of his
acceptance of respondent’s resignation.

Subsequently, DTI-RO2 received, through

fax, Memorandum Order No. 20 issued by
USec Ordoñez detailing respondent to the
Office of the Undersecretary for Regional
Operations effective 17 January 2000.

On 17 January 2000, the DTI-RO2 received

respondent’s 14 January 2000 letter
informing RD Hipolito that he was
reconsidering his earlier letter of resignation
and that he decided to wait until he could
qualify for early retirement.
Director Hipolito wrote Atty. Soria requesting
an opinion on whether respondent was
considered resigned as of 12 November 1999
and, hence, Undersecretary Ordoñez’s detail
order was without effect.

In CSC-RO2 Opinion No. LO-000202, Atty.

Soria ruled that respondent was considered
resigned effective 14 January 2000. CSC-RO2
opined that respondent effectively resigned
on that date because (1) of respondent’s
voluntary written notice informing Director
Hipolito that he was relinquishing his
position and the effectivity date of said
resignation and (2) Director Hipolito’s
acceptance of respondent’s resignation in
writing which indicated the date of effectivity
of the resignation. CSC-RO2 also said that
respondent’s letter withdrawing his
resignation did not automatically restore him
to his position because Director Hipolito
should first approve the withdrawal before it
becomes effective.

In a letter[15] dated 11 February 2000,

Director Hipolito informed Undersecretary
Ordoñez that respondent had resigned
effective 14 January 2000 and, thus, the
detail order was without effect. Director
Hipolito added that during respondent’s
leave of absence, respondent accepted
employment with the Philippine Rural
Banking Corporation (PRBC).

In a letter[16] dated 23 February 2000,

respondent informed Undersecretary
Ordoñez that his application for resignation
was made under duress because it was
imposed by Director Hipolito as a condition
for the approval of his application for leave of
absence. Respondent explained that he did
not intend to resign on 14 January 2000 as
his original intention was to resign on 1
August 2000 after completing 15 years of
service in the government. Respondent also
stated that his resignation was ineffective
because he was not notified of its acceptance
for he did not receive a copy of his approved
resignation letter and Director Hipolito’s
memorandum accepting his application for
resignation. Respondent added that even
assuming he was duly notified of its
acceptance, his resignation was still made
under duress and, therefore, no amount of
acceptance would make it valid.

On 2 March 2000, Undersecretary Ordoñez

required Director Hipolito to comment on
respondent’s 23 February 2000 letter.
Undersecretary Ordoñez asked Director
Hipolito to submit documentary evidence to
show that respondent received a copy of
Director Hipolito’s formal acceptance in
writing of respondent’s letter of resignation
and that respondent was employed by PRBC
during his leave of absence.

On 28 March 2000, respondent demanded

from Director Hipolito the payment of his
salaries and other benefits from 1 December
1999 to 31 March 2000.

On 5 April 2000, Undersecretary Ordoñez

ordered Director Hipolito to advise him as to
respondent’s request for the payment of his
unpaid salaries. Undersecretary Ordoñez also
asked Director Hipolito to support his claim
that respondent was considered resigned
effective 14 January 2000 with a ruling from
the CSC.
In a letter[17] dated 18 April 2000, Atty. Soria
asked Director Hipolito to comment on
respondent’s 14 April 2000 letter[18]
requesting for the reconsideration of CSC-
RO2 Opinion No. LO-000202. In his comment,
[19]
Director Hipolito denied that he “forced,
intimidated, threatened, and unduly
pressured” respondent to resign. Director
Hipolito also insisted that respondent
received a copy of the 12 November 1999
memorandum regarding the acceptance of
his resignation.

On 5 June 2000, the CSC-RO2 rendered

Decision No. A-000601[20] denying
respondent’s motion for reconsideration.
CSC-RO2 ruled that respondent was
considered resigned as of 14 January 2000
because the detail order made no mention
that its issuance meant that the acceptance
of the resignation was revoked. CSC-RO2
added that since Undersecretary Ordoñez
was not the appointing authority, he had no
power to accept respondent’s withdrawal of
his resignation.
Respondent appealed to the CSC.

The Ruling of the Civil Service

Commission

On 27 November 2000, the CSC rendered

Resolution No. 002651 declaring
respondent’s resignation inoperative and
inefficacious. The CSC also ordered the
payment of respondent’s salaries and other
benefits from 1 January 2000. The CSC ruled:
There is no dispute that Singun tendered his
resignation to Regional Director Hipolito to
take effect on January 14, 2000. But it is
likewise undisputed that on the very day that
his cessation from office is to take effect, DTI
Undersecretary Ordoñez ordered his detail to
his Office. This act of Undersecretary
Ordoñez, who is the immediate supervisor of
Regional Director Hipolito, is a tacit, if not
express, repudiation and revocation of the
ostensible acceptance by the latter of the
supposed resignation of Singun. This, in
effect, can be construed as if no acceptance
was ever made on the tender of resignation
of Singun.
Finally, even on the assumption that Singun’s
tender of resignation was indeed accepted,
such acceptance is inoperative and
inefficacious. This is so simply because there
is no showing from the records that Singun
was duly informed of said acceptance. In fact,
there is no mention whatsoever that Singun
was informed of the acceptance of his
resignation. This being the case, it cannot be
concluded that Singun had, either impliedly
or expressly, surrendered, renounced, or
relinquished his office. In explaining this
precept, the Commission in CSC Resolution
No. 00-2394 dated October 18, 2000, held:
‘It is explicit that resignation, as a mode of
terminating the employee’s official relations,
is pre-conditioned on the (i) written notice of
the concerned employee to sever his
employment tie coupled with an act of
relinquishing the office; and, (ii) acceptance
by the appointing authority for which the
employee shall have been properly
notified...’[21]
On 15 December 2000, petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration. Two
supplemental motions for reconsideration
were subsequently filed on 12 January 2001[22]
and 11 April 2001.[23] In Resolution No.
010843,[24] the CSC denied petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals.[25]

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On 1 August 2001, the Court of Appeals

denied petitioner’s appeal and affirmed CSC
Resolution Nos. 002651 and 010843. The
Court of Appeals declared that there was
substantial evidence to support the CSC’s
finding that respondent’s resignation was
inoperative and inefficacious. The Court of
Appeals stated that findings of fact of an
administrative agency must be respected, as
long as such findings are supported by
substantial evidence, even if such evidence
might not be overwhelming or preponderant.
The Court of Appeals said “the fact of
resignation cannot be presumed by the
petitioner’s simple expedient of relying on
memoranda or letters merely showing the
purported approval of resignation which bore
his signature, because to constitute a
complete and operative act of resignation,
the officer or employee must show a clear
intention to relinquish or surrender his
position.”[26]

The Court of Appeals also ruled that

respondent’s alleged act of accepting
employment with PRBC did not amount to
abandonment of office. The Court of Appeals
held that abandonment is inconsistent with
respondent’s (1) motion for reconsideration
of CSC-RO2’s Opinion No. LO-000202, (2)
appeal questioning CSC-RO2’s Decision No.
A-000601, and (3) bringing the matter to the
National Office of the CSC for resolution.

The Court of Appeals also declared that

petitioner was not denied due process
because the essence of due process in
administrative proceedings is an opportunity
to explain one’s side or an opportunity to
seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. In this case, petitioner was
able to file a motion for reconsideration and
two supplemental motions for
reconsideration.

Hence, this petition for review with prayer

 for a temporary restraining order.

On 8 October 2001, the Court issued a

temporary restraining order enjoining the
CSC from enforcing the 1 August 2001
Decision of the Court of Appeals and
respondent from assuming office at the DTI-
RO2, Cagayan Province.[27]

The Issues

Petitioner raises the following issues:

1 Whether respondent validly resigned from
DTI-RO2 effective 14 January 2000; and
2
3 Whether the detail order issued by
Undersecretary Ordoñez effectively withdrew
respondent’s resignation.
The Court’s Ruling

The petition has no merit.

The Final Act of a Resignation’s Acceptance

is the Notice of Acceptance

Resignation implies an expression of the

incumbent in some form, express or implied,
of the intention to surrender, renounce, and
relinquish the office and the acceptance by
competent and lawful authority.[28] To
constitute a complete and operative
resignation from public office, there must be:
(a) an intention to relinquish a part of the
term; (b) an act of relinquishment; and (c) an
acceptance by the proper authority.[29]

Petitioner maintains that respondent’s

resignation was complete because all the
elements of a complete and operative
resignation were present. On the other hand,
respondent claims that his resignation was
not complete because there was no valid
acceptance of his offer to resign since he was
not duly informed of its acceptance.

In our jurisdiction, acceptance is necessary

for resignation of a public officer to be
operative and effective. Without acceptance,
resignation is nothing and the officer remains
in office.[30] Resignation to be effective must
be accepted by competent authority, either in
terms or by something tantamount to an
acceptance, such as the appointment of the
successor.[31] A public officer cannot abandon
his office before his resignation is accepted,
otherwise the officer is subject to the penal
provisions of Article 238[32] of the Revised
Penal Code.[33] The final or conclusive act of a
resignation’s acceptance is the notice of
acceptance.[34] The incumbent official would
not be in a position to determine the
acceptance of his resignation unless he had
been duly notified therefor.[35]

In this case, the Court of Appeals and the

CSC declared that there was nothing in the
records to show that respondent was duly
informed of the acceptance of his resignation.
There was no indication that respondent
received a copy of his 12 November 1999
application for leave of absence and
resignation as accepted by Director Hipolito.
Neither was there any indication that
respondent received Director Hipolito’s 12
November 1999 Memorandum informing him
of the acceptance of his resignation.
Therefore, we affirm the ruling of the Court
of Appeals that respondent’s resignation was
incomplete and inoperative because
respondent was not notified of the
acceptance of his resignation.
Petitioner’s contention that respondent knew
that his resignation was accepted because
respondent had notice that his application for
leave of absence was approved does not
deserve any merit. As respondent explained,
there is a specific form used for an
application of leave of absence and the
approval of his application for leave of
absence does not necessarily mean the
acceptance of his resignation.

On respondent’s alleged employment with

the PRBC, the Court notes that if respondent
was employed by PRBC, it was undertaken
during his approved leave of absence. It does
not have any connection with the acceptance
of his resignation. We agree with the findings
and conclusions of the Court of Appeals that
this does not amount to abandonment. If
respondent was indeed employed by PRBC
during his approved leave of absence and he
violated Civil Service rules, then the proper
case should be filed against him.

Resignation may be Withdrawn before its

Acceptance
Until the resignation is accepted, the tender
or offer to resign is revocable.[36] And the
resignation is not effective where it was
withdrawn before it was accepted.[37]

In this case, since respondent’s resignation

was not finally and conclusively accepted as
he was not duly notified of its acceptance,
respondent could validly withdraw his
resignation. There was no need for Director
Hipolito to accept the withdrawal of
resignation since there was no valid
acceptance of the application of resignation
in the first place. Undersecretary Ordoñez
also validly issued the detail order as
respondent had not effectively resigned from
DTI-RO2.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and

AFFIRM the 1 August 2001 Decision of the
Court of Appeals. We LIFT the temporary
restraining order enjoining the Civil Service
Commission from enforcing the 1 August
2001 Decision of the Court of Appeals and
respondent Winston T. Singun from assuming
office at the Department of Trade and
Industry, Regional Office No. 2, Cagayan
Province.

SO ORDERED.