B.M. No. 1036 - Aguirre vs. Rana

On 1 December 2010, Judge Cleto R. Villacorta III was granted authority to travel to Canada.
The approved period of travel was from 20 December 2010 to 3 February 2011.
He was expected to resume work on 4 February 2011.
However, he reported back on 16 February 2011, as certified by the Clerk of Court, indicating an unapproved extension of his stay.

His reasons included attending to family matters such as accompanying his son for a medical check-up in Canada.
There were delays related to the family’s apartment transfer because the previous tenant had not vacated.
He awaited the issuance of a re-entry permit.
He had to wait for packages from his sister intended for his mother in the Philippines.

On 29 April 2011, he was granted another authority to travel to Canada from 1 May to 2 June 2011, this time for attending his sister’s wake and funeral.

A Memorandum dated 12 May 2011, prepared by Deputy Court Administrator and the OCA Office of Administrative Services, recommended that the extended absence from 4-15 February 2011 be considered unauthorized.
The judge’s explanation letter (31 March 2011) was referred to the OCA Legal Office for further action.
Following his second travel to Canada, he again failed to report on the expected return date of 3 June 2011.
A certification showed that he returned only on 7 June 2011.
In response to queries regarding the late return, Judge Villacorta explained in his letter dated 15 June 2011 that the only available return flight was on 5 June 2011.
On 11 August 2011, he sent another letter requesting the consolidation of the incidents and indicating his intention to tender his resignation effective 31 October 2011 to settle abroad.
Another memorandum dated 19 September 2011 reiterated that his absence during 3-6 June 2011 was unauthorized and referred his subsequent letters to the OCA Legal Office.

OCA Circular No. 49-2003 stipulates that any request for an extension of the period to travel/stay abroad must be filed at least ten (10) working days before the expiration of the original authority.
Failure to file such a request renders any absences beyond the authorized period as unauthorized.
Section 50 of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 41, series of 1998, provides that an employee absent without approved leave is not entitled to the salary for that period.
The record shows that Judge Villacorta was aware that his travel schedule would make him absent on the return dates, but he failed to secure the necessary extension or leave approval.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that Judge Villacorta receive a stern warning for his failure to adhere to the established guidelines.
The OCA instructed the deduction of salaries corresponding to the unauthorized absences from both the first and second instances (4-15 February and 3-6 June 2011).
The resolution emphasizes the need for establishing electronic filing rules for leave applications to facilitate compliance and manage contingencies for officials who are abroad.

Whether Judge Villacorta’s extended absences during his travels abroad, specifically his failure to secure a timely extension as required under OCA Circular No. 49-2003, constitute unauthorized absences.

The issue centers on his failure to apply for an extension at least ten (10) working days prior to the expiration of his travel authority.
Whether the reasons provided in his letter, despite being family-related, justify the lapse in procedure.

Whether the unauthorized absences as a judicial officer warrant administrative sanctions, including salary deductions.

The application of Section 50 of the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 41, series of 1998, to officials who are absent without the approved leave.
The need to maintain accountability and discipline among those entrusted with the administration of justice.

The implications of his conduct for future compliance among court personnel.

Whether such behavior sets a precedent for other court officials regarding adherence to established rules and guidelines.
The requirement that judges lead by example in observing the rules governing leave and absences.