G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-91-650
Date: July 21, 1993

Case Parties: Dominica C. Tadeo, complainant, vs. Nelia F. Daquiz, also known as Nelia D. Enrile, Staff Assistant I, Regional Trial Court, Branch 105, Quezon City, respondent.

FACTS

1. Dominica C. Tadeo filed a sworn complaint on November 27, 1991, charging respondent Nelia F. Daquiz (also known as Nelia D. Enrile), a Staff Assistant I at RTC Branch 105, Quezon City, with grave misconduct and dishonesty.
2. The complaint alleged that pursuant to Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 83-91 dated September 2, 1991, respondent was detailed to the Office of Court of Appeals Justice Cesar D. Francisco until the end of October 1991, and thereafter ordered to report to the Office of the Executive Judge, RTC, Baguio City, effective November 2, 1991. Despite this, respondent failed to report to Baguio City, often visited her old office during hours, and was accused of using it for her ready-to-wear business and making aspersions against complainant’s children.
3. The Court Administrator forwarded the complaint for investigation. The Leave Section of the Office of Administrative Services sent respondent warning letters dated March 16, 1992, and April 15, 1992, concerning her absence without official leave (AWOL) since November 2, 1991, and directed her to explain. Respondent did not comply.
4. Respondent requested permission to return to her Quezon City assignment instead of reporting to Baguio, citing separation from her children and interruption of her law studies.
5. Complainant sent a supplemental letter dated April 27, 1992, alleging respondent’s willful defiance of A.O. No. 83-91, AWOL status since December 23, 1991, seeking influence (“padrinos”) for a transfer, and withdrawing salaries from November 1991 to March 1992 despite being AWOL.
6. The Court, via a Resolution dated July 15, 1992, found respondent’s explanations unsatisfactory, reiterated A.O. No. 83-91, ordered her to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken, and directed her to report immediately to the RTC in Baguio City.
7. Respondent did not comply with the show-cause order. Instead, she submitted an irrevocable resignation letter dated July 1, 1992, citing the same personal reasons.
8. It was later discovered that respondent had been employed at the Bureau of Internal Revenue since August 1992 without securing permission from the Court. She also continued to receive salaries and allowances totaling P11,526.15 from November 1991 to March 1992 during her unauthorized absence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Nelia F. Daquiz should be held administratively liable for her actions, including defiance of lawful orders, unauthorized absence, abandonment of duty, and receiving salaries while on AWOL, and what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED respondent Nelia F. Daquiz from the judicial service.
1. The Court held that respondent’s resignation was inoperative and ineffective for lack of acceptance by the competent authority. A resignation requires both the act of relinquishment and its acceptance to be complete.
2. Respondent’s unexplained and unauthorized absence without leave (AWOL) since November 2, 1991, constituted an abandonment of her position.
3. Her conduct demonstrated a flagrant disregard for lawful orders, treating her public office as a matter of personal convenience, which is contrary to the public trust mandated for all public officers and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A. No. 6713).
4. Her act of transferring to another government agency (Bureau of Internal Revenue) without first securing permission from the Supreme Court, her employer, violated civil service rules.
5. The Court imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service effective November 2, 1991 (when her last leave expired), with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and privileges, and with prejudice to reinstatement or reemployment in any government branch, agency, or instrumentality.
6. She was further ordered to refund immediately the amount of P11,526.15, corresponding to the salaries and personal economic relief allowances she received during her unauthorized absence.