Republic, represented by the Department of Trade and Industry v.

Winston Singun
Carpio, J. March 14, 2008 G.R. No. 149356
Doctrine Resignation. It 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. 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.
Acceptance of resignation. Acceptance is necessary for resignation of a public officer to be operative and effective. 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.
Facts - Respondent was the former Chief Trade and Industry Development Specialist of DTI in Regional Office No. 2, Cagayan
Province (DTI-RO2). On October 20, 1999, he wrote a letter to Regional Director Jose Hipolito, asking to apply for an eight
month leave of absence starting November 16, 1999 until July 31, 2000. He also signified his intention to retire from the
service on August 1, 2000. He finally filed his application for leave of absence and early retirement, but this was denied by
the Director.
- He filed the same the second time and this was endorsed by Director Hipolito to Assistant Secretary Maglaya for his
comment, but without waiting for the latter, Singun again filed the application but for a shorter period and signified his
intention to resign from service at the close of office hours on January 14, 2000.
Director Hipolito alleged that he approved Singuns application and accepted his resignation on the same day in
the form of a memorandum. In a letter dated November 23, 1999, he also notified Atty. Soria, the Regional
Director of the CSC Regional Office No. 2 about it.
- On January 14, 2000, the DTI RO2 received Memorandum No. 2 issued by DTI Undersecretary Ordonez, detailing
respondent to the Office of the Undersecreatry for Regional Operations effective January 17, 2000.
- Respondent wrote a letter to DTI RO2, stating that he was reconsidering his earlier resignation and that he decided to wait
until he could avail of early retirement.
- Director Hipolito asked Atty. Soria (CSC RO2) on whether Singun was considered resigned on January 14, 2000. He
answered in the affirmative because of his voluntary written notice regarding the relinquishment of his position and the
effectivity date of the resignation and because of Director Hipolitos acceptance of the resignation.
- Director Hipolito informed Usec. Ordonez about it in explaining that the detail order was without effect. The former
mentioned that during his leave of absence, Singun accepted employment with the Philippine Rural Banking Corporation.
- Singun later informed Usec. Ordonez that he applied for resignation under duress by Director Hipolito as a condition for
the approval of his leave. He further stated that:
His original intention was to resign on August 1, 2000 after completing 15 years of government service.
That his resignation was ineffective because he was notified of its acceptance and that he didnt receive a copy of
his resignation letter and the memorandum.
- Singun asked the CSC RO2 to reconsider its decision. He also demanded the payment of his salaries from December 1, 1999
to March 31, 2000 from Director Hipolito.
- CSC RO2 denied his MR and held that the detail order did not mention that its issuance would mean that the acceptance of
resignation was revoked and that the Usec. had no authority to accept respondents withdrawal of his resignation.
- CSC (via appeal by respondent): In his favor; held that the act of Usec. Ordoez 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; also, assuming that the tender of resignation as accepted, the
acceptance is inoperative and inefficacious.
- CA: Affirmed the CSC

1. Whether respondent validly resigned from DTI-RO2 effective January 14, 2000 (NO, please see Doctrine)
Ratio/Issues A. A public officer cannot abandon his office before his resignation is accepted, otherwise the officer is subject to the penal
provisions of Article 23 of the Revised Penal Code.
- The final or conclusive act of a resignations acceptance is the notice of acceptance. The incumbent official would not be in
a position to determine the acceptance of his resignation unless he had been duly notified therefor.
B. Both the CA and CSC held that the records do not show that respondent was duly informed of the acceptance of his
resignation.
C. Petitioner claims that respondent had notice of his resignations acceptance by reason of the approval of his application for
leave but the Court struck down this contention. There is a specific form used for an application for a leave of absence.
D. Also, petitioner alleged that he had abandoned his position by reason of his being employed in PRBC. The Court noted that
it took place during his leave of absence and it doesnt have any connection with the acceptance of his resignation. This
doesnt amount to abandonment of his public office.

2. Whether resignation may be withdrawn before its acceptance (YES)

A. Until the resignation is accepted, the tender or offer to resign is revocable. And the resignation is not effective where it
was withdrawn before it was accepted.
-As applied, since his resignation was not finally and conclusively accepted as he was not duly notified of its acceptance,
he could validly withdraw his resignation. There was no need for Director Hipolito to accept the withdrawal of
resignation, in the first place because there was no valid acceptance
Held Petition denied
Prepared by: Eunice V. Guadalope [Public Officers and Election Law]