G.R. No. L-78957 June 28, 1988
MARIO D. ORTIZ, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and COMMISSION ON AUDIT, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Mario D. Ortiz was appointed COMELEC Commissioner by President Ferdinand Marcos on July 30, 1985, for a term expiring May 17, 1992. Following the 1986 EDSA Revolution, petitioner, along with other Commissioners, sent a letter dated March 5, 1986, to President Corazon Aquino stating, “we hereby place our position at your disposal.” The Freedom Constitution was promulgated on March 25, 1986. On July 21, 1986, the Deputy Executive Secretary informed the COMELEC Acting Chairman that President Aquino had accepted the resignations of Commissioners Marquinez, Ortiz, Agpalo, and Layosa, effective immediately. Petitioner subsequently applied for retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 1568 , as amended.
The COMELEC, in its Resolution No. 86-2491 dated August 13, 1986, denied the applications for retirement of petitioner and the other Commissioners, stating they were not entitled to benefits under R.A. No. 1568 . Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing he did not resign but merely placed his position at the President’s disposal, and that he had constructively completed his term due to the reorganization. His motion was denied. After appealing to the Commission on Audit (COA) without a definitive resolution, petitioner filed this petition for certiorari, which the Court treated as a petition for mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner Mario D. Ortiz, whose “courtesy resignation” was accepted by the President under the Freedom Constitution, is entitled to retirement benefits under Republic Act No. 1568 , as amended.

RULING

Yes, petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits. The Court ruled that the letter placing his position “at the disposal” of the President constituted a resignation. A resignation is a formal relinquishment of an office, and the act of submitting it, followed by its acceptance, severs the officer’s relationship with the office. The President’s acceptance of the resignation, communicated through the Deputy Executive Secretary, was a valid and effective act.
However, the pivotal legal issue is the effect of this separation under the Freedom Constitution and the applicable retirement law. Article III, Section 3 of Proclamation No. 3 (the Freedom Constitution) explicitly provides that any public officer separated due to the reorganization, if entitled under the laws then in force, shall receive retirement benefits. Republic Act No. 1568 , as amended, grants benefits to a COMELEC member who “resigns at any time after reaching the age of sixty years but before the expiration of his term of office,” provided he has rendered not less than twenty years of government service. The Court found that petitioner, at over sixty years of age and with more than twenty years of government service, met the substantive conditions of the law.
The separation, effected as part of the government reorganization under the revolutionary government, fell within the protective mantle of the Freedom Constitution’s transitory provisions. The denial of benefits, based on a distinction between a “courtesy resignation” and a resignation under the statute, was a grave abuse of discretion. The law’s intent is to provide security for long-serving officials. Therefore, the COMELEC’s resolution was reversed, and the COA was directed to process and pay petitioner’s retirement benefits.