A.M. No. P-11-2927 - Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services-OCA vs. Wilma Salvacion P. Heusdens

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-11-2927)

Key Dates and Procedural Timeline

OCA received respondent’s leave application by mail on July 10, 2009 (for travel Sept. 11 to Oct. 11, 2009). Respondent left the country without awaiting OCA action and returned to work on October 19, 2009. OCA issued a memorandum recommending disapproval on November 26, 2009; Chief Justice approved recommendation December 7, 2009; OCA notified respondent of disapproval on January 6, 2010 and directed an explanation; respondent filed a Comment on February 2, 2010 admitting travel without authority; OCA submitted a Report on March 8, 2011 recommending re-docketing as a regular administrative matter and disciplinary sanction; the Court’s decision (majority and dissent) was rendered in the Supreme Court opinion referenced.

Factual Background

Respondent mailed a leave application for foreign travel (favorably recommended by her presiding judge) but did not secure all documentary clearances required by OCA Circular No. 49-2003, specifically clearance from the Supreme Court Savings and Loan Association (SCSLA) where she had an outstanding loan. Despite incomplete requirements and absence of an issued travel authority, she proceeded to travel abroad for the period indicated in her application and later reported back to duty after her return. She subsequently acknowledged in comment that she travelled without required authority and explained that she believed her mailed application would ultimately be approved.

OCA Action and Recommendations

The OCA found the travel unauthorized, recommended disapproval of the leave application, and required respondent to explain her failure to secure travel authority in violation of OCA Circular No. 49-2003. The OCA Report concluded respondent violated the circular for failing to secure required clearances and recommended that the administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be deemed guilty of violating OCA Circular No. 49-2003, with a recommended reprimand and warning.

Requirements Under OCA Circular No. 49-2003

OCA Circular No. 49-2003(B) requires all foreign travels of judges and court personnel to have prior permission from the Supreme Court through the Chief Justice and division chairmen. Court personnel must secure a travel authority from the OCA and submit specified documents: letter-request; leave application favorably recommended by Presiding/Executive Judge; clearance as to money and property accountability; clearance as to pending criminal and administrative cases; for certain personnel, additional specialized clearances; and Supreme Court clearance. Complete requirements must be submitted at least two weeks before the intended period; no action shall be taken on requests with incomplete requirements; applications received less than two weeks before intended travel shall not be favorably acted upon. Paragraph 4 provides that leaving the country without OCA-issued travel authority subjects judges and personnel to disciplinary action.

Civil Service and Leave Rules Relevant to the Case

Section 67 of the Civil Service Omnibus Rules on Leave states that violation of leave laws, rules or regulations, or misrepresentation in connection with a leave application, is a ground for disciplinary action. Under the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO No. 292 (Section 49, Rule XVI), an application for leave not acted upon within five working days after receipt shall be deemed approved; prior jurisprudence (Commission on Appointments v. Paler) applied this deemed-approval rule under CSC governance.

Majority’s Legal Analysis and Application of Rules

The majority concluded respondent violated OCA Circular No. 49-2003 by leaving the country without an approved travel authority and without complying with clearance and accountability requirements, particularly the SCSLA clearance. Because the circular expressly provides that no action shall be taken on requests with incomplete requirements, the majority held that respondent should have anticipated disapproval absent completion of the requirements. The majority rejected respondent’s claim that she honestly believed the application would be approved as unacceptable given her awareness of incomplete requirements. The Court emphasized that judiciary personnel are subject to the Court’s administrative supervision (Article VIII, Section 5(6)) and must adhere to rules promulgated for orderly administration of justice; unrestricted travel by court personnel could disrupt judicial administration and public safety.

Constitutional Right to Travel — Majority’s Position

The majority acknowledged that the Constitution guarantees a right to travel (Article III, Section 6) but stated that this case did not present a pure constitutional challenge; respondent did not raise a constitutional claim and admitted the violation. The Court reiterated that the right to travel is not absolute and may be subject to constitutional, statutory, and inherent limitations (national security, public safety, public health and other laws). The majority listed statutory examples of legitimate travel restrictions (Human Security Act, Philippine Passport Act, Anti-Trafficking Act, Migrant Workers Act, Violence Against Women and Children Act, Inter-Country Adoption Act) and discussed inherent limitations (e.g., court orders prohibiting departure). The majority held OCA Circular No. 49-2003 to be a valid exercise of the Court’s supervisory power over courts and personnel and a reasonable regulation to ensure efficient administration and public safety.

SCSLA Clearance Requirement — Majority’s Rationale

The majority found the SCSLA clearance requirement proper. It relied on the close institutional connection between SCSLA and the judiciary: SCSLA membership is available primarily to Supreme Court and lower court personnel; loan processing involves payroll deductions and assignments of benefits; co-makers and undertakings are required for loans and for certain clearances. By voluntarily joining SCSLA and applying for loans, the employee undertakes obligations that bear on accountability; compliance with such undertakings is a condition of internal office clearance. The Court clarified that the sanction was not for incurring debt but for failing to comply with office-prescribed requirements.

Sanctions, Precedent, and Remedy

Citing prior disciplinary decisions (Office of the Administrative Services v. Calacal; Reyes v. Bautista; Concerned Employees v. Paguio-Bacani) and the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, the Court recognized a graduated penalty scheme: reprimand for first offense, suspension for second, dismissal for third. The OCA recommended reprimand with warning. The majority, however, mitigated the penalty to admonition rather than reprimand because the Leave Division belatedly acted on the application

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-11-2927)

Procedural Posture

En banc decision of the Supreme Court, reported at 678 Phil. 328, A.M. No. P-11-2927 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3532-P), decided December 13, 2011; authored by Justice Mendoza.
Complaint initiated by the Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against respondent Wilma Salvacion P. Heusdens, Clerk IV, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Tagum City, for traveling abroad without required travel authority.
Chronology of administrative action:
- July 10, 2009: Employees Leave Division, OAS-OCA received respondent’s leave application for foreign travel (Sept. 11 to Oct. 11, 2009). [Rollo, pp. 5-8]
- Respondent departed before receiving action on her application and returned to work on October 19, 2009.
- November 26, 2009: OCA issued memorandum recommending disapproval of respondent’s leave application and advising that respondent be directed to explain failure to secure authority (violation of OCA Circular No. 49-2003). [Rollo, pp. 5-6]
- December 7, 2009: Then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno approved the OCA recommendation.
- January 6, 2010: OCA Deputy Court Administrator Nimfa C. Vilches informed respondent her leave was disapproved and travel considered unauthorized; respondent directed to explain within 15 days. [Rollo, p. 4]
- February 2, 2010: Respondent’s Comment admitted traveling overseas without required travel authority and explained mailing her application and belief it would be approved. [Rollo, p. 3]
- March 8, 2011: OCA Report found violation of OCA Circular No. 49-2003; recommended re-docketing as regular administrative matter and a reprimand with warning. [Rollo, pp. 9-11]

Facts (Undisputed)

Respondent mailed a leave application for foreign travel, covering September 11–October 11, 2009, received by OCA on July 10, 2009.
Respondent left the country without awaiting OCA action or receiving travel authority.
No travel authority was issued because respondent was not cleared of all accountabilities per the Supreme Court Certificate of Clearance; specifically, she failed to obtain clearance from the Supreme Court Savings and Loan Association (SCSLA) where she held an outstanding loan.
Respondent returned to work on October 19, 2009.
Respondent admitted traveling without required travel authority and expressed apology, stating she believed her application (which was recommended by her superior) would be eventually approved. [Rollo, pp. 3, 5-8]

Relevant Rules, Regulations, and Legal Authorities Cited

OCA Circular No. 49-2003 (B) — "Vacation Leave to be Spent Abroad":
- Requires prior permission from the Supreme Court for all foreign travels of judges and court personnel, regardless of number of days.
- Judges and court personnel who wish to travel abroad must secure travel authority from the Office of the Court Administrator and submit specified requirements.
- For court personnel, requirements include: application/letter to Court Administrator, leave application favorably recommended by Presiding/Executive Judge, clearance as to money and property accountability, clearance as to pending criminal/administrative cases, for court stenographers clearance of stenographic notes, and Supreme Court clearance.
- "Complete requirements should be submitted ... at least two weeks before the intended period. No action shall be taken on requests for travel authority with incomplete requirements. ... applications received less than two weeks of the intended travel shall not be favorably acted upon." (underscoring supplied in source)
- Paragraph 4: judges and personnel who leave the country without OCA travel authority "shall be subject to disciplinary action."
Section 67, Civil Service Omnibus Rules on Leave: aany violation of the leave laws, rules or regulations, or any misrepresentation or deception in connection with an application for leave, shall be a ground for disciplinary action. (Amended by CSC MC No. 41, s. 1998)
Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO No. 292, Section 49, Rule XVI: If a leave application is not acted upon within five (5) working days after receipt, the application is deemed approved.
Executive Order No. 6 and Memorandum Circular/Order modifying EO 6 (Memorandum Circular No. 26, July 31, 1986): Supreme Court exempted from prior approval of Office of the President and may promulgate guidelines on travels abroad for its members and lower courts; requests for permission to travel abroad from judiciary members/employees obtained from Supreme Court.
Precedents and other statutes cited: Commission on Appointments v. Paler (G.R. No. 172623), Mirasol v. DPWH, Silverio v. Court of Appeals, Office of the Administrative Services v. Calacal, Reyes v. Bautista, Concerned Employees v. Paguio-Bacani, other statutes limiting travel (Human Security Act R.A. 9372; Philippine Passport Act R.A. 8239; Anti-Trafficking R.A. 9208; Migrant Workers R.A. 8042 as amended; Violence against Women R.A. 9262; Inter-Country Adoption Act R.A. 8043), and international instruments referenced in dissent (UDHR, ICCPR).

Issue(s) Presented

Primary: Whether respondent violated OCA Circular No. 49-2003 by leaving the country for foreign travel without securing travel authority from the OCA, and, if so, what administrative penalty is appropriate.
Secondary/raised by parties or in opinions:
- Whether OCA Circular No. 49-2003 unduly restricts the constitutional right to travel (Section 6, Article III, 1987 Constitution).
- Whether clearance from the Supreme Court Savings and Loan Association (SCSLA) is a legitimate precondition for travel authority from OCA.
- Whether respondent’s leave application was deemed approved under Omnibus Rules (Section 49, Rule XVI) when OCA did not act within five working days.

Majority Holding (Decision)

The Supreme Court, through Justice Mendoza, found respondent Wilma Salvacion P. Heusdens guilty of violating OCA Circular No. 49-2003 for leaving the country without securing the required travel authority.
Penalty: Respondent is ADMONISHED for traveling abroad without any travel authority in violation of OCA Circular No. 49-2003, and is given a WARNING that repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
The Court directed the Leave Division, OAS-OCA, to act upon applications for travel abroad at least five (5) working days before the intended date of departure.
Concurrences: Chief Justice Corona and Justices Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Reyes, and Perlas-Bernabe concurred. Justice Carpio authored a dissent; Justices Abad and Sereno joined Carpio’s dissent in whole or in part as noted.

Majority Reasoning — Noncompliance with OCA Circular No. 49-2003

OCA Circular No. 49-2003 specifically requires the submission of clearance as to money and property accountability and a Supreme Court clearance among other items for court personnel seeking travel abroad.
Respondent did not comply with the clearance/accountability requirements; specifically, she fai