Bane of courtesy resignation
It is an unwritten rule in Philippine bureaucracy that when someone is appointed to head a government office or agency, the appointees of his or her predecessor whose employment is coterminous to his or her term should offer to resign or submit their courtesy resignation.
More so if the subject position is considered one of trust and confidence that, as a rule, is exempted from civil service rules on age, educational qualification, eligibility and personal relationships.
Culturally, the action is meant to be an expression of delicadeza (or propriety) or loyalty to the appointing power.
It would be up to the new office head to decide on the offer of resignation depending on his or her appreciation of the employee’s track record or perceived value to the organization.
Last week, that standard was applied to key employees of the Department of Transportation and the Presidential Communications Office after President Marcos appointed new officials to head them.
Although no reason has to be cited to justify an order for those employees to submit their courtesy resignation, the action is supposedly aimed at giving the new heads a fresh start or a free hand in choosing the people they want to work with to accomplish the duties and responsibilities of their office.
The failure or refusal of an employee to offer to resign (which cannot be considered voluntary if it is ordered to be made) would not, however, prevent his or her employment from being terminated due to loss of trust and confidence or for any of the causes for termination cited in the appointment papers.
If any of those reasons are questioned by a dismissed employee at the Civil Service Commission, getting them set aside would be a miracle. Considering the slow pace of justice in our country, seeking judicial relief from that rebuff would not be a viable move.
In the private sector, submission of courtesy resignation by the staff (or being asked to do that) when a new boss is named is not standard practice. Aside from being demoralizing, it is susceptible to complaints about unfair labor practice if the company has an employees’ union.
After a new manager or supervisor takes over an operational work group, the rule of thumb is for that person to, among others, review the employment record of the staff and, after careful evaluation, decide who to retain, reassign to another position, permanently lay off or be asked to resign.
In case of termination of employment, it better be for a cause that is provided for in the company’s rules and regulations or is considered by the Labor Code as a just cause for dismissal.
Asking or forcing an employee to resign or, as practiced in the government service, ordered to submit his or her courtesy resignation, is fraught with serious adverse consequences.
As the Supreme Court had repeatedly ruled, when an employer commits acts that compel an employee to resign, the termination of employment would be considered as constructive dismissal that could give rise to the payment of back wages, separation pay and damages.
Unlike in the government where “loss of trust and confidence” as a basis for termination of employment is often liberally construed, e.g., for being in the national interest or for the good of the service, that reason would not easily fly in private employment. It would be strictly construed.
Proving that cause would require the presentation of testimonial and documentary evidence about, among others, the nature or extent of the trust and confidence given to the employee and the acts that he or she had committed that justify the termination of employment.
With the rule in labor cases that doubts should be resolved in favor of labor, the most effective way to make that cause stick is to show that it resulted in substantial losses to the business or already constitutes a criminal act.
This is one time when private employment trounces government employment.
