Interpreting Courtesy Resignation of Employee in Fixed-Term Administrative Position Under Philippine Labor Law

I. Introduction

In Philippine public administration, the “courtesy resignation” has become an institutionalized yet legally ambiguous mechanism used primarily during changes in leadership or when a new appointing authority wishes to reorganize his or her team without resorting to outright termination. It is most commonly applied to incumbents holding fixed-term administrative positions—whether presidential appointees, bureau directors, assistant secretaries, or other non-career positions whose tenure is defined either by law or by the nature of the appointment (coterminous with trust and confidence).

Although the term “courtesy resignation” appears nowhere in the Labor Code, the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), the Civil Service Law (PD 807/RA 2260 as amended), or the Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions, the practice has been repeatedly recognized and given legal effect by both executive practice and jurisprudence. This article exhaustively discusses the nature, validity, effects, revocability, and practical consequences of a courtesy resignation tendered by an employee occupying a fixed-term administrative position.

II. Nature of “Courtesy Resignation” Distinguished from Ordinary Resignation

An ordinary resignation is an unconditional, unilateral act of the employee manifesting a clear intent to sever the employment relationship. Once accepted (or upon the effectivity date stated), it is final and binding.

A courtesy resignation, by contrast, is inherently conditional. It is an offer to vacate the position if the superior or incoming leadership so desires. It is submitted precisely to give the appointing authority complete discretion either to accept it (thereby terminating the incumbent) or to reject/ignore it (thereby allowing the incumbent to continue until the end of his or her fixed term or until some other legal mode of separation intervenes).

The Supreme Court has implicitly recognized this conditional character in several cases involving mass courtesy resignations tendered during administration changes (e.g., the 2001 mass courtesy resignations under President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and the 2016 transition under President Rodrigo Duterte). In practice, the Court has never treated the mere submission of a courtesy resignation as automatically vacating the position.

III. Classification of Fixed-Term Administrative Positions Relevant to Courtesy Resignation

To properly interpret the effects of a courtesy resignation, the exact classification of the position must first be determined:

1. Primarily confidential positions or positions coterminous with trust and confidence
   These positions expire automatically upon loss of confidence, even without formal termination proceedings (Canonizado v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 133132, 25 January 2001; De los Santos v. Mallare, G.R. No. L-48777, 29 July 1977, as reaffirmed in subsequent cases). Security of tenure is co-extensive only with the trust reposed by the appointing authority.

2. Positions with fixed terms prescribed by special law but not primarily confidential
   Examples: Members of the Energy Regulatory Commission (7-year term), Insurance Commissioner (6-year term), certain bureau directors under reorganization laws. These enjoy security of tenure during their term and may be removed only for cause with due process.

3. Contractual/coterminous positions whose term is tied to the incumbent appointing authority or to a specific project
   These expire upon the end of the appointing authority’s term or project completion, but the incumbent may still be separated earlier via loss of confidence if the position is also primarily confidential.

4. Career executive service (CES) positions occupied by CESOs with fixed-term appointments
   While CESOs enjoy security of tenure in the CES rank, their assignment to a specific position may be coterminous or fixed-term.

The courtesy resignation mechanism is most frequently used in categories 1 and 3 above, where the appointing authority wishes to avoid the stigma and procedural difficulties of declaring “loss of confidence” as a ground for termination.

IV. Legal Effects of Tendering a Courtesy Resignation

1. Submission alone does not vacate the position
   The position remains occupied, and the employee continues to exercise the functions and receive salary and benefits until the resignation is expressly accepted. This has been the consistent practice in all documented mass courtesy resignation episodes (2001, 2010, 2016, 2022–2023 PNP third-level officers).

2. Acceptance is required for separation
   The resignation becomes effective only upon express or implied acceptance by the proper appointing authority. Implied acceptance occurs when a replacement is appointed and the replacement assumes the position (CSC Resolution No. 99-1934, 16 August 1999; reiterated in numerous CSC opinions).

3. The resignation is deemed resignation, not termination
   Once accepted, separation is classified as “resignation” (not “termination” or “loss of confidence”), which preserves eligibility for future government service, avoids the 5-year ban under the Administrative Code for dismissal cases, and entitles the employee to full retirement/separation benefits without the stigma of misconduct.

4. Refusal or non-action on the courtesy resignation = continuation in office
   The incumbent serves the remainder of his or her fixed term (if the position enjoys fixed-term security of tenure) or until the appointing authority’s term ends (if coterminous).

V. Is a Courtesy Resignation Revocable or Withdrawable?

General rule: Yes, before acceptance.

Because the resignation is conditional by its very nature (“courtesy” = offered only if the superior wishes to avail of it), the offeror may withdraw the offer at any time before it is accepted. This aligns with Article 1323 of the Civil Code: “An offer becomes ineffective upon the death, civil interdiction, insanity, or insolvency of either party before acceptance is conveyed.” By analogy, withdrawal before acceptance renders the offer ineffective.

Exception when the letter explicitly states “irrevocable courtesy resignation”
In the 2023 PNP mass courtesy resignation episode, the standard pro forma letter contained the phrase “irrevocable courtesy resignation.” The DILG and the Napolcom-treated committee treated such letters as irrevocable. However, no Supreme Court ruling has yet tested whether an “irrevocable courtesy resignation” clause is legally binding when the very concept of courtesy resignation is conditional. Legal scholars remain divided, but the better view is that the conditional nature prevails over contradictory wording, because public office is a public trust and continuity of service cannot be lightly disrupted by ambiguous wording.

In practice, attempts to withdraw “irrevocable” courtesy resignations in the PNP case were rejected by the review committee, but those officers were eventually separated only after their resignations were formally accepted.

VI. Can Refusal to Submit a Requested Courtesy Resignation Be a Ground for Disciplinary Action?

No. Resignation is inherently voluntary (Article 300 [285], Labor Code, by analogy; Section 11, Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292).

A superior cannot lawfully compel an employee to resign, even by threat of administrative charges. To do so would constitute grave coercion or oppression (Revised Penal Code, Art. 286; Administrative Code, Sec. 46(b)(8), Book V).

However, in positions that are primarily confidential or coterminous with trust, refusal to tender courtesy resignation is often interpreted by the new leadership as evidence of loss of confidence, which is itself a valid ground for termination without need of courtesy resignation. Thus, while refusal cannot be punished as insubordination per se, it frequently leads to eventual separation via loss of confidence.

VII. Special Considerations When the Position Enjoys Fixed-Term Security of Tenure Under Special Law

If the position has a statutory fixed term and is not coterminous with trust (e.g., a commissioner with a 7-year term), the incumbent cannot be removed except for cause enumerated in the enabling law, even upon change of administration.

In such cases:

• A courtesy resignation, once accepted, validly cuts short the term (voluntary relinquishment).
• Refusal to submit courtesy resignation has no adverse legal effect, because the appointing authority has no power to declare loss of confidence in a fixed-term non-confidential position.
• The incumbent serves the full unexpired term unless he or she commits a valid cause for removal.

VIII. Practical Consequences and Best Practices

1. For the employee

   • Phrase the letter carefully: “I hereby tender my courtesy resignation effective only upon your acceptance” preserves maximum flexibility.
   • Avoid the word “irrevocable” unless you genuinely intend to leave regardless of acceptance.
   • Submit only if you are prepared to be separated; once accepted, recall is virtually impossible.

2. For the appointing authority

   • Non-acceptance of a courtesy resignation binds the administration to retain the incumbent (and pay salary) until legal separation is possible.
   • Mass courtesy resignations are useful screening tools (as in the 2023 PNP cleansing) but must be followed by individual evaluation to avoid arbitrary dismissal claims.

IX. Conclusion

A courtesy resignation tendered by an employee in a fixed-term administrative position is not an absolute resignation but a conditional offer to relinquish the post at the pleasure of the appointing authority. It becomes effective only upon acceptance. Until acceptance, the employer-employee or public officer–appointing authority relationship continues uninterrupted, and the employee enjoys all rights pertaining to the position, including salary, benefits, and (if applicable) security of tenure for the remainder of the fixed term.

The mechanism elegantly reconciles the political reality of leadership transitions with the constitutional and statutory guarantees of security of tenure, voluntariness in separation, and the principle that public office is a public trust. When properly understood and applied, it allows reorganization without unnecessary antagonism or litigation, while preserving the dignity of both the outgoing officer and the incoming leadership.