CSC M.C. No. 17 s. 2002.

Resolution No. 021181

and
M.C. No. 24 s. 2002/
Resolution No. 021480
Certain Modes of Separation
Documents Required For Record Purpose

I. Resignation is the voluntary relinquishment or

surrender of the office, and the acceptance
thereof by competent authority

A. Requisites
a. Tender must be in writing
b. Voluntary
c. Acceptance – by competent authority
 NOTES:
1. When procured by fraud or duress,
resignation may be repudiated.

2. Courtesy Resignation lacks the element of

voluntariness and is therefore not valid.
Ortiz vs. Comelec – 162 SCRA 812

3. Need for Acceptance

a. Expressly
b. Impliedly – as in the appointment of a successor
4. Mere tender of resignation, without acceptance by
competent authority does not create a vacancy in public
office; resignation is not complete until accepted by proper
authority.
Joson vs. Nacario 187 (SCRA 453)

5. In the Philippines, acceptance of resignation is necessary

because Art. 238 of the Revised Penal Code, penalizes any
public office who before acceptance of his resignation,
abandoned his office to the detriment of public service

6. If the public officer is mandated by law to hold over, the

resignation, even if accepted, will not be effective until after
the appointment or election of his successor.
B. Effective date of Resignation

The date specified in the tender, and if no such

date is specified, then resignation shall be
effective when the public officer receives notice
of the acceptance of his resignation, not the
date of the letter or notice of acceptance.
(Gamboa vs. Court of Appeals (1981)
II. Dropping from the Rolls

Sec. 2
Rule XII Omnibus Rules of the Civil Service.

Officers and employees who are either habitually

absent or have unsatisfactory or poor performance
or have shown to be physically and mentally unfit
to perform their duties may be dropped from the
Rolls subject to the following procedures;
2.1 Absence Without Approved Leave
a. An officer or employee who is continuously absent
without approved leave (AWOL) for at least (30)
thirty working days shall be separated from the
service or dropped from the rolls without prior
notice. He shall however be informed of his
separation from the service not later than five (5)
days from its effectivity which shall be sent to the
address appearing on his 201 files or to his last
known address – as amended by CSC MC no. 15,
s. 1999
b. If the number of unauthorized absences incurred is
less than (30) thirty working days, a written
Return – To Work order shall be served on the
official or employee at his last known address on
record. Failure on his part to report for work
within the period stated in the order shall be a
valid ground to drop him from the rolls – as
amended by CSC M.C. no. 15 s. 1999
 The Case in Point
City Government of Makati
vs.
Civil Service Commission
GR No. 131392 – February 6, 2002
(Bellosillo, J.)

This case, enunciates the rule on automatic leave of

absence in case the employee is arrested and/or detained or
by reason of some other forms of force majeure or other
unfortunate event.
2.2 Unsatisfactory or Poor Performance
a. An official or employee who is given two (2) consecutive
unsatisfactory ratings may be dropped from the rolls after
due notice. Notice shall mean that the officer or employee
concerned is informed in writing of his unsatisfactory
performance for a semester and is sufficiently warned that
a succeeding unsatisfactory performance shall warrant his
separation from the service. Such notice shall be given not
later than 30 days from the end of the semester and shall
contain sufficient information which shall enable the
employee to prepare an explanation.
b. An official or employee, who for one evaluation period
is rated poor in performance may be dropped from the
rolls after due notice. Due Notice shall mean that the
officer or employee is informed in writing of the status
of his performance not later than the 4th month of that
rating period with sufficient warning that failure to
improve his performance within the remaining period
of the semester shall warrant his separation from the
service. Such notice shall also contain sufficient
information which shall enable the employee to
prepare an explanation.
2.3 Physically and Mentally Unfit
a. An officer or an employee who is continuously absent
for more than one (1) year by reason of illness maybe
declared physically unfit to perform his duties and the
Head of Office in the exercise of his sound judgment
may consequently drop him from the rolls.

b. An officer or employee who is intermittently absent by

reason of illness for at least two hundred sixty (260)
working days during a 24-month period may also be
declared physically unfit by the Head Office.
c. An officer or employee who is behaving abnormally for
an extended period which manifests continuing mental
disorder and incapacity to work as reported by his co-
workers or immediate supervisor and confirmed by the
Head of Office, may likewise be dropped from the
rolls.

For the purpose of the three (3) preceeding paragraphs,

notice shall be given to the employee containing a brief
statement of the nature of his incapacity to work;
2.4 The officer or employee who is separated from the
service through any of the above modes has the
right to appeal his case within fifteen (15) days
from receipt of such order or notice of
separation.

2.5 The order of separation is immediately executory

pending appeal, unless the commission on
meritorious grounds directs otherwise.
2.6 This mode of separation from the service for unauthorized
absences or unsatisfactory or poor performance or physical
and mental incapacity is non-disciplinary in nature and
shall not result in the forfeiture or any benefits on the part
of the official or employee nor in disqualifying him from
reemployment in the government.

2.7 The written notice mentioned in the preceeding paragraphs

may be signed by the person exercising immediate
supervision over the official or employee. However, the
notice of separation shall be signed by the appointing
authority or Head of Office.
Sec. 3 Dismissal

A certified copy of the decision rendered

where the penalty of dismissal was
imposed shall be submitted to the
commission.
II. Abolition of the Office
To be valid, abolition of the office must not
constitute removal of the incumbent. It is within the legal
competence of the city council to create, consolidate and re-
organize city offices, and positions wholly supported by
local funds. (Mama Jr. vs. Court of Appeals 196 SCRA
489).

But, the abolition must be done in good faith, with

the clear intent to do away with the office, not for personal
or political reasons, and can not be implemented in a manner
contrary to law. (Mendoza vs. Quisumbing, 186 SCRA
108).
IV. Conviction of a Crime
When the penalty imposed, upon conviction, carries with it the
accessory penalty of disqualification, conviction by final judgment
automatically terminates official relationship.

But, a plenary pardon extinguishes the accessory penalty of

disqualification, it will not restore the public office to the officer convicted. He
must be given a new appointment to the position. (Monsanto vs. Factoran 170
SCRA 190).

In Sabello vs. Department of Education 180 SCRA 623 for reasons of

equity, the Supreme Court held that the former elementary school. Principal
should not be re-appointed to a lower position than that which he formerly
occupied.
 But, when a person is given a pardon because he did
not truly commit the offense, the pardon relieves him from
all punitive consequences of his criminal act, thereby
restoring him to his clean name, good reputation and
unstained character prior to his finding of guilt. The
bestowal of executive clemency in effect completely
obliterated the adverse effects of the administrative decision
which found him guilty of Dishonesty and ordered his
separation from the service.
 This can be inferred from the executive clemency
itself exculpating petitioner from the administrative charge
and thereby directing his reinstatement, which is rendered
automatic by the grant of the pardon. This signifies that
petitioner need no longer apply for reinstatement; he is
restored to his office ipso facto upon the issuance of the
clemency, and he is entitled to back wages. (Vicente Garcia
vs. Chairman, Commission on Audit 226 SCRA 356).
V. Filing of Certificate of Candidacy

Sec. 66 BP 881 provides- any person holding a public

appointive office or position including members of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines and officers and employees
in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be
considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon filing of
his Certificate of Candidacy. See also secs. 4,5 and 6 of Rule
XIII – Omnibus Rules.
 Those who lost in an election (except Barangay
Election) shall not be eligible for appointment or re-
employment to any office within one (1) year following such
election.
This rule also applies to those whose certificate of
candidacy has been filed and later on disqualified.

Those who resign during the three (3) months period

before any election to promote the candidacy of another shall
not be re-employed during the next six-month period
following such election.
 THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW ON
AUTOMATIC LEAVE OF ABSENCE
SUSPENDED EMPLOYEE-
EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP
ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE
DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS
CITY OF MAKATI VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET.AL.,
G.R. NO. 131392-February 6, 2002

The Facts of the Case:

Eusebia R. Galzote was a clerk in the Department of

Engineering and Public Works in Makati City. On
September 6, 1991, she was arrested and detained without
bail for the crime of Kidnapping For Ransom. The city
government through its municipal personnel officer, issued
an order suspending her from the service effective
September 9, 1991 until the final disposition of her case.
 Later, and without informing her, the City
Government dropped her from the rolls of municipal
employees effective January 21, 1993 for having been absent
without official leave for more than one year. On September
22, 1994, she was acquitted of the crime charged for lack of
evidence that she conspired in the commission of the crime.
 On October 19, 1994, she requested the municipal
personnel officer and Mayor Jejomar Binay for the lifting of
her suspension and reinstatement to her position in
accordance with the September 6, 1991 Memorandum of the
City Government. The City Government refused her. On
August 4, 1995 she filed a letter-protest with the Civil
Service commission, which ordered her immediate
reinstatement and the payment of her back salaries from
October 19, 1994, the day that she first reported for work
until her actual resumption of duty. The city government
filed a petition for review of the C.S. C .Resolution but the
Court of Appeals denied it, thereby sustaining the CSC
resolution.
ISSUES

1. Was Galzote properly dropped from the rolls

of employees?

2. Was her suspension from September 9, 1991

until the final disposition of her case is
terminated, valid or illegal?
RULING

The Court believes that Galzote can not be faulted for

failing to file prior to her detention an application for leave and
obtain approval thereof. The records show that on September 9,
1991, she was ordered as suspended until the final disposition of
her case. This order for her suspension until her case is finally
resolved should be taken as an equivalent of a prior approved leave
of absence since it was her employer, the city government which
placed her under suspension, and thus excused her from further
formalities in applying for leave. Such arrangement bound the
City government to allow her to return to work after the
termination of her case.
 Indeed, Galzote did not have the least intention to go
on AWOL. AWOL means the employee leaving or
abandoning her post without justifiable reason and without
notifying his employer. In this case, Galzote had a justifiable
reason, that is she was on jail without bail.
 The City government cannot insist that the suspension
order dated September 9, 1991 is illegal because there was no
administrative charge against Galzote. The Supreme Court
said we have no reason to nullify the city government’s order
of suspension. A void act though in law a mere scrap of
paper nonetheless, it confers legitimacy upon past acts or
omissions done in reliance thereof. Consequently, the
existence of a statute, or executive order prior to its being
adjudged void is an operative fact to which legal
consequences are attached. It would be ghastly unfair to
prevent private respondent from relying upon the order of
suspension in lieu of a formal leave application.
 Responsibility for such illegal act as in this case rests
upon the employer, the city of Makati on ground of estoppel.

The court said, the suspension order dated September

9, 1991, had for its effect the temporary suspension of the
employee-employer relationship until Galzote’s case has been
terminated.
 The court went further by saying, that due to her
detention in jail, Galzote was deemed to have been on an
automatic leave of absence, because whether she likes it or
not, she could not report for work due to her detention.

Finally, the court said, that true enough; leave of

absence shall be dependent on the exigencies of the service,
thus, one cannot go on leave outright, except of course due to
illness, because one can not schedule her illness.
 But, illness is not the only force majeur. There may be
other eventualities that may prevent one from reporting for
work such as, typhoon, war and other calamities and
detention in jail. These later forms of force majeur, are
considered as akin to illness, under which the employee may
be excused from the formalities of applying for leave
formalities. In these later instances of force majeur, it is
enough that the employee informs his employer of his
predicament to avoid being considered as absent without
leave and avoid being dropped from the rolls.