REPUBLIC V SINGUN

FACTS
REspondent was the former Chief Trade and Industry Development Specialist of DTI in Regiona
l No. 2, CagayanProvince (DTIO2). On October 20, 1999, he wrote a letter to Regional Director
Jose Hipolito, asking to apply for an eightmonth leave of absence starting November 16, 1999 u
ntil July 31, 2000. He also signified his intention to retire from theservice on August 1, 2000. He
finally filed his application for leave of absence and early retirement, but this was denied bythe
Director.
He filed the same the second time and this was endorsed by Director Hipolito to Assistant Secr
etary Maglaya for hiscomment, but without waiting for the latter, Singun again filed the applicatio
n but for a shorter period and signified hisintention to resign from service at the close of office h
ours on January 14, 2000.Director Hipolito alleged that he approved Singun’s application and ac
cepted his resignation on the same day inthe form of a memorandum. In a letter dated Novemb
er 23, 1999, he also notified Atty. Soria, the RegionalDirector 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, detailingrespondent to the Office of the Undersecreatry for Regional Operations effect
ive January 17, 2000.Respondent wrote a letter to DTI RO2, stating that he was reconsidering h
is earlier resignation and that he decided to waituntil he could avail of early retirement.-
Director Hipolito asked Atty. Soria (CSC RO2) on whether Singun was considered resigned on
January 14, 2000. Heanswered in the affirmative because of his voluntary written notice regardi
ng the relinquishment of his position and theeffectivity date of the resignation and because of Di
rector Hipolito’s acceptance of the resignation.Director Hipolito informed Usec. Ordonez about it
in explaining that the detail order was without effect. The formermentioned 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 Hi
polito as a condition forthe 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 resignati
on was ineffective because he was notified of its acceptance and that he didn’t receive a copy of
his resignation letter and the memorandum.Singun asked the CSC RO2 to reconsider its decisio
n. He also demanded the payment of his salaries from December 1, 1999to March 31, 2000 fro
m Director Hipolito.CSC RO2 denied his MR and held that the detail order did not mention that it
s issuance would mean that the acceptance ofresignation was revoked and that the Usec. had n
o authority to accept respondent’s withdrawal of his resignation.
ISSUES
Whether respondent validly resigned from DTIRO2 effective January 14, 2000 (NO, please see
Doctrine).
Whether resignation may be withdrawn before its acceptance.
RULING
A public officer cannot abandon his office before his resignation is accepted, otherwise the offic
er 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 incumb
ent official would not be ina position to determine the acceptance of his resignation unless he ha
d been duly notified therefor.Both the CA and CSC held that the records do not show that respo
ndent was duly informed of the acceptance of hisresignation.Petitioner claims that respondent h
ad notice of his resignation’s acceptance by reason of the approval of his application forleave
but the Court struck down this contention. There is a specific form used for an application for a l
eave of absence.
Also, petitioner alleged that he had abandoned his position by reason of his being employed in
PRBC. The Court noted thaiit took place during his leave of absence and it doesn’t have any co
nnection with the acceptance of his resignation. Thisdoesn’t amount to abandonment of his publ
ic office.
Second issue
Until the resignation is accepted, the tender or offer to resign is revocable. And the resignation i
s not effective where itwas withdrawn before it was accepted.-
As applied, since his resignation was not finally and conclusively accepted as he was not duly n
otified of its acceptance,he could validly withdraw his resignation. There was no need for Directo
r Hipolito to accept the withdrawal ofresignation, in the first place because there was no valid ac
ceptance.