[A.M. No. P-11-2927 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3532-P] : 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.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This case stemmed from the leave application for foreign travel1 sent through mail by Wilma Salvacion P. Heusdens (respondent), Staff Clerk IV of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Tagum City, Davao del Norte.cralaw
Records disclose that on July 10, 2009, the Employees Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), received respondent''s leave application for foreign travel from September 11, 2009 to October 11, 2009. Respondent left for abroad without waiting for the result of her application. It turned out that no travel authority was issued in her favor because she was not cleared of all her accountabilities as evidenced by the Supreme Court Certificate of Clearance. Respondent reported back to work on October 19, 2009.2
The OCA, in its Memorandum3 dated November 26, 2009, recommended the disapproval of respondent''s leave application. It further advised that respondent be directed to make a written explanation of her failure to secure authority to travel abroad in violation of OCA Circular No. 49-2003. On December 7, 2009, then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno approved the OCA recommendation.
Accordingly, in a letter4 dated January 6, 2010, OCA Deputy Court Administrator Nimfa C. Vilches informed respondent that her leave application was disapproved and her travel was considered unauthorized. Respondent was likewise directed to explain within fifteen (15) days from notice her failure to comply with the OCA circular.
In her Comment5 dated February 2, 2010, respondent admitted having travelled overseas without the required travel authority. She explained that it was not her intention to violate the rules as she, in fact, mailed her leave application which was approved by her superior, Judge Arlene Lirag-Palabrica, as early as June 26, 2009. She honestly believed that her leave application would be eventually approved by the Court.
The OCA, in its Report6 dated March 8, 2011, found respondent to have violated OCA Circular No. 49-2003 for failing to secure the approval of her application for travel authority.
Hence, the OCA recommended that the administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be deemed guilty for violation of OCA Circular No. 49-2003 and be reprimanded with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely.
OCA Circular No. 49-2003 (B) specifically requires that:
Paragraph 4 of the said circular also provides that 'judges and personnel who shall leave the country without travel authority issued by the Office of the Court Administrator shall be subject to disciplinary action.'
Records disclose that on July 10, 2009, the Employees Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), received respondent''s leave application for foreign travel from September 11, 2009 to October 11, 2009. Respondent left for abroad without waiting for the result of her application. It turned out that no travel authority was issued in her favor because she was not cleared of all her accountabilities as evidenced by the Supreme Court Certificate of Clearance. Respondent reported back to work on October 19, 2009.2
The OCA, in its Memorandum3 dated November 26, 2009, recommended the disapproval of respondent''s leave application. It further advised that respondent be directed to make a written explanation of her failure to secure authority to travel abroad in violation of OCA Circular No. 49-2003. On December 7, 2009, then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno approved the OCA recommendation.
Accordingly, in a letter4 dated January 6, 2010, OCA Deputy Court Administrator Nimfa C. Vilches informed respondent that her leave application was disapproved and her travel was considered unauthorized. Respondent was likewise directed to explain within fifteen (15) days from notice her failure to comply with the OCA circular.
In her Comment5 dated February 2, 2010, respondent admitted having travelled overseas without the required travel authority. She explained that it was not her intention to violate the rules as she, in fact, mailed her leave application which was approved by her superior, Judge Arlene Lirag-Palabrica, as early as June 26, 2009. She honestly believed that her leave application would be eventually approved by the Court.
The OCA, in its Report6 dated March 8, 2011, found respondent to have violated OCA Circular No. 49-2003 for failing to secure the approval of her application for travel authority.
Hence, the OCA recommended that the administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be deemed guilty for violation of OCA Circular No. 49-2003 and be reprimanded with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely.
OCA Circular No. 49-2003 (B) specifically requires that:
B. Vacation Leave to be Spent Abroad.
Pursuant to the resolution in A.M. No. 99-12-08-SC dated 6 November 2000,7 all foreign travels of judges and court personnel, regardless of the number of days, must be with prior permission from the Supreme Court through the Chief Justice and the Chairmen of the Divisions.
1. Judges and court personnel who wish to travel abroad must secure a travel authority from the Office of the Court Administrator. The judge or court personnel must submit the following:
(a) For Judges
x x x
(b) For Court Personnel:
' application or letter-request addressed to the Court Administrator stating the purpose of the travel abroad;
' application for leave covering the period of the travel abroad, favorably recommended by the Presiding Judge or Executive Judge;
' clearance as to money and property accountability;
' clearance as to pending criminal and administrative case filed against him/her, if any;
' for court stenographer, clearance as to pending stenographic notes for transcription from his/her court and from the Court of Appeals; and
' Supreme Court clearance.
2. Complete requirements should be submitted to and received by the Office of the Court Administrator at least two weeks before the intended period. No action shall be taken on requests for travel authority with incomplete requirements. Likewise, applications for travel abroad received less than two weeks of the intended travel shall not be favorably acted upon. [Underscoring supplied]
Paragraph 4 of the said circular also provides that 'judges and personnel who shall leave the country without travel authority issued by the Office of the Court Administrator shall be subject to disciplinary action.'
