G.R. No. A.M. No. P-11-2927; December 13, 2011
LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES-OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR (OCA), Complainant, vs. WILMA SALVACION P. HEUSDENS, Clerk IV, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Tagum City, Respondent.

FACTS

The case originated from a leave application for foreign travel submitted by mail by respondent Wilma Salvacion P. Heusdens, a Staff Clerk IV of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Tagum City, Davao del Norte. On July 10, 2009, the OCA’s Employees Leave Division received her application to travel abroad from September 11 to October 11, 2009. Respondent left for abroad without waiting for the result of her application. Her application was not approved because she was not cleared of all her accountabilities, as evidenced by her lack of a Supreme Court Certificate of Clearance. She reported back to work on October 19, 2009. The OCA, in a Memorandum dated November 26, 2009, recommended the disapproval of her leave application and advised that she be directed to explain her failure to secure travel authority in violation of OCA Circular No. 49-2003. This recommendation was approved by then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno on December 7, 2009. Accordingly, the OCA informed respondent that her application was disapproved, her travel was unauthorized, and she was directed to explain her non-compliance. In her Comment dated February 2, 2010, respondent admitted traveling overseas without the required travel authority. She explained that she had mailed her leave application, which was approved by her presiding judge on June 26, 2009, and she honestly believed it would eventually be approved by the Court.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Wilma Salvacion P. Heusdens is administratively liable for violating OCA Circular No. 49-2003 by traveling abroad without securing the required travel authority.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Court found that respondent violated OCA Circular No. 49-2003. The Circular explicitly requires court personnel wishing to travel abroad to secure a travel authority from the Office of the Court Administrator by submitting complete requirements, including a clearance as to money and property accountability and a Supreme Court clearance, at least two weeks before the intended travel. Paragraph 4 of the Circular states that personnel who leave the country without such authority shall be subject to disciplinary action. The records showed that respondent failed to secure clearance from the Supreme Court Savings and Loan Association where she had an outstanding loan, thus her application had incomplete requirements. The Circular cautions that no action shall be taken on requests with incomplete requirements. The Court held that respondent’s explanation—that she believed her application would be approved—was unacceptable given her awareness of the incomplete requirements. Her act of leaving the country without awaiting the OCA’s approval constituted a violation of the rules.
The Court also addressed, obiter dictum, the potential argument that the Circular unduly restricts the constitutional right to travel. It clarified that the right to travel under Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution is not absolute and is subject to statutory and inherent limitations in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health. The Court cited several statutory examples (e.g., the Human Security Act, the Philippine Passport Act) and noted that inherent limitations include the judiciary’s power to regulate the conduct of its personnel to ensure efficient public service. The Court emphasized that the administrative rule requiring prior travel authority for court personnel is a valid regulation connected to their duties and the proper administration of justice.
Following the OCA’s recommendation, the Court deemed respondent guilty of violating OCA Circular No. 49-2003. She was REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar offense would be dealt with more severely.