A police colonel, whose letter submitting himself to probe on alleged involvement of Philippine National Police (PNP) officers in illegal drugs-related activities was misconstrued as his courtesy resignation, was ordered reinstated by the Court of Appeals (CA).

Ordered reinstated to his PNP post with payment of backwages and statutory benefits was Col. Fernando R. Ortega whose purported courtesy resignation was accepted by the Office of the President on July 23, 2023.

The CA decision was promulgated last June 1 and written by Associate Justice Rogelio G. Largo with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Emily R. Alino-Geluz.

Based on available information, Ortega was born on Nov. 28, 1969. On Nov. 28, 2025, he turned 56 years old, the mandatory retirement age for PNP members.

Case records show that on July 18, 2019, Ortega was promoted to the rank of colonel and was later assigned as deputy district director for administration of the Quezon City Police District.

On Jan. 4, 2023, Maj. Gen. Robert Rodriguez issued a memorandum reiterating the call of Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Benjamin Abalos Jr. for all PNP members holding the ranks of police colonel up to police general to submit their courtesy resignations.

On Jan 29, 2023, Ortega wrote a letter to President Marcos, through Secretary Abalos, submitting himself to the assessment and evaluation of the committee created to probe alleged illegal drugs-related activities.

In his letter, Ortega told the President: “Should I be found, based on evidence, to have involvement in any illegal drug activities, I will tender my courtesy resignation or optional retirement, whichever is applicable under the circumstances and as authorized by the existing laws, rules and regulation.”

He also assured his “commitment and cooperation with the present internal cleansing program of the PNP.”

On July 17, 2023, PNP Chief Gen. Benjamin Acorda, Jr. wrote a letter to the President about Ortega’s purported resignation.

In a letter dated July 21, 2023, the Office of the President informed Acorda that Ortega’s resignation had been accepted.

On July 31 2023, Rodriguez – as director for personnel and records management -- issued General Order No. NHQ-GO-RG-2023-3486 certifying that Ortega had resigned from the PNP effective July 21, 2023.

In a letter dated Aug. 7, 2023, Ortega told the President that he did not resign from the service and he had no participation in any illegal drug-related activities. He pleaded for his reinstatement.

Thereafter on Aug. 30, 2023, Ortega filed before the trial court a petition for prohibition, injunction, and mandamus, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order against Acorda and Rodriguez. He cited a “severe violation” of his right to due process.

Ortega told the Quezon City regional trial court (RTC) that despite the clear tenor of his letter, Acorda and Rodriguez “erred in construing it as a form of resignation, rather than a mere request for investigation.”

Thus, he pointed out that Acorda and Rodriguez’s acts amounted to constructive dismissal, meant to circumvent his right to due process and security of tenure.

Acorda and Rodriguez insisted before the trial court that Ortega “voluntarily filed his resignation, which was subsequently accepted by the President; thereby rendering the act sought to be enjoined a fait accompli (something already done and difficult to undo).

On Oct. 16, 2023, the RTC denied Ortega’s plea for injunctive relief.

On Feb. 7, 2025, the second RTC judge who handled Ortega’s case affirmed the denial of the reliefs sought and eventually dismissed the petition.

The judge ruled that Ortega’s termination from the service, by virtue of his resignation, should have been appealed to the DILG pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 6975, the DILG law.

However, the judge pointed out that Ortega appealed before the Office of the President without awaiting the President’s decision, and violated the rules when he failed to disclose his appeal to the Office of the President in his trial court petition.

Citing Supreme Court (SC) rulings, the CA said that to constitute a complete and operative resignation from public office, there must be: a) an intention to relinquish a part of the term; b) an act of relinquishment; and c) an acceptance by the proper authority.

It said that the SC had ruled that a resignation must be unconditional. “If there is the slightest condition attached to one’s action or statement relating to their resignation, then it is not a resignation,” the CA also said citing the SC’s rulings.

The CA said:

“Within these parameters, it is apparent that petitioner (Ortega) did not resign from his position. In the Jan. 29, 2023 letter, he merely stated his intention to submit to ‘assessment and evaluation by the five-man committee in relation to the issue on the alleged involvement of PNP personnel in illegal drug activities;’ further, that he would tender his ‘courtesy resignation or optional retirement’ should he be found ‘based on evidence, to have involvement in any illegal drug activities.’

“Evidently, the said letter cannot be interpreted as a resignation letter, courtesy or otherwise. There is no word or phrase that would evince any intention on the part of petitioner to unconditionally relinquish his term of office or give up his position.

“Instead, the letter merely showed the intention and consent of the petitioner to be subjected to appropriate administrative proceedings to determine his liability, if any.”

It pointed out that while the resignation of a public officer is complete when it is duly accepted by the proper authorities, “this doctrine should be interpreted to cover only circumstances where the public officer actually intended to resign.”

The CA also said:

“When there is no proper resignation, there is nothing to accept. Accordingly, the acceptance of a resignation when, in reality, there is no such resignation, will have no effect in law. Therefore, it was gravely erroneous for respondents to send a letter to the Office of the President about the petitioner’s purported resignation, which resulted in the President’s ‘acceptance.’

“In treating the January 29, 2023 letter as a resignation letter and thereby severing petitioner’s employment in the government, respondents (Acorda and Rodriguez) violated the jurisprudential guidelines, as well as the constitutional mandate that no employee of the civil service shall be removed from office except for cause provided by law.”

The CA ruled:

“All told, the Court finds that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion when they treated petitioner’s January 29, 2023 letter as an act of resignation and, pursuant to the subsequent invalid acceptance of the President, considered petitioner’s employment severed. Corollary to this, petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and to the payment of his backwages from the time he was deemed resigned until his actual reinstatement.”