View full case

SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF SAN ANDRES v. CA

FACTS:

Augusto T. Antonio was elected as the president of the Association of Barangay Captains (ABC) in San Andres, Catanduanes. He resigned as sectoral representative to the Sangguniang Bayan but later withdrew his resignation, claiming his right to re-assume his position. The Sanggunian refused to acknowledge his right, prompting Antonio to file a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminary mandatory injunction and/or restraining order before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The trial court ruled in favor of Antonio, declaring that his resignation was ineffective and ordered the Sanggunian to allow him to assume his position and pay his uncollected salaries. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling but deleted some paragraphs. It held that the resignation was not accepted by the President and that Antonio, as the ABC president, was qualified to sit in the Sanggunian in an ex officio capacity. Due to new barangay officials elected, Antonio's reassumption of office was no longer feasible. The Court of Appeals removed the award of attorney's fees and held that certain resolutions were valid. The case was brought to the Supreme Court, raising the issues of whether Antonio's resignation was complete and effective, whether there was an abandonment of office, and whether he was entitled to collect salaries similar to other members of the Sanggunian.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not respondent's resignation as ex-officio member of Petitioner Sangguniang Bayan ng San Andres, Catanduanes is deemed complete so as to terminate his official relation thereto;

  2. Whether or not respondent had totally abandoned his ex-officio membership in Petitioner Sangguniang Bayan;

  3. Whether or not respondent is entitled to collect salaries similar to those received by other members of Petitioner Sangguniang Bayan from April 8, 1992 up to the date of judgment in this case by the Regional Trial Court of Virac, Catanduanes.

  4. Whether or not there was an abandonment of office by the respondent.

  5. Whether or not the respondent's conduct and overt acts demonstrate his intention to abandon his position.

  6. Whether or not the private respondent voluntarily abandoned his post as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan.

  7. Whether or not the private respondent can claim the legal right to be a member of the Sangguniang Bayan by virtue of Section 146 of B.P. Blg. 337.

  8. Whether or not the private respondent is entitled to back salaries.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that there was no valid and complete resignation from respondent as an ex-officio member of the Petitioner Sangguniang Bayan ng San Andres, Catanduanes due to the absence of acceptance by the proper authority. However, the Court ruled that respondent has effectively relinquished his membership in the Sangguniang Bayan through his voluntary abandonment of said post.

  2. Yes, there was an abandonment of office by the respondent. Abandonment of office requires two essential elements: an intention to abandon and an overt or "external" act by which the intention is carried into effect. In this case, the respondent's failure to perform his duties as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan, his failure to collect remuneration for the position, his failure to object to the appointment of his replacement, and his prolonged failure to initiate any act to reassume his position all manifested his intention to abandon his office.

  3. Yes, the respondent's conduct and overt acts demonstrate his intention to abandon his position. His letter of resignation from the Sangguniang Bayan, his assumption of office as a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, his faithful discharge of his duties and functions as member of the Sanggunian, and his receipt of remuneration for such post all show that he had carried out his intention to abandon his position.

  4. Yes, the private respondent voluntarily abandoned his post as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan.

  5. No, the private respondent cannot claim the legal right to be a member of the Sangguniang Bayan by virtue of Section 146 of B.P. Blg. 337.

  6. No, the private respondent is not entitled to back salaries.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Resignation from public office requires an intention to relinquish the term, an act of relinquishment, and an acceptance by the proper authority.

  • Absent any statutory provisions as to whom resignations should be submitted, they should be tendered to the appointing person or body.

  • Abandonment of office is a voluntary relinquishment of an office by the holder, with the intention of terminating possession and control thereof.

  • Abandonment requires a clear intention to abandon, accompanied by deliberation and freedom of choice.

  • Abandonment of office requires both an intention to abandon and an overt act to carry out that intention.

  • Failure to perform duties, failure to collect remuneration, failure to object to a replacement, and prolonged failure to reassume a position can manifest an intention to abandon.

  • The simultaneous discharge of duties in different positions is allowed unless the law requires resignation from the original post.

  • Passivity, silence, and acquiescence may imply recognition of a valid appointment and abandonment of the contested office.

  • Public office is the right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, and the right to hold a public office exists only because and by virtue of some law expressly or impliedly creating and conferring it.

  • There is no such thing as a vested interest or an estate in an office, or even an absolute right to hold office, except for constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure.

  • The "no work, no pay" rule applies to public officers, and they are entitled to receive compensation for services actually rendered for as long as they have the right to the office being claimed.