Leave Division vs. Heusdens

A judiciary employee who travels abroad without securing the required travel authority and clearances violates OCA Circular No. 49-2003, and cannot invoke the deemed-approved rule under the Civil Service Omnibus Rules on Leave when the application remains incomplete.

Respondent Wilma Salvacion P. Heusdens, Staff Clerk IV of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Tagum City, Davao del Norte, sent a leave application for foreign travel via mail, covering the period from September 11, 2009 to October 11, 2009. The application was received by the Employees Leave Division, OCA, on July 10, 2009, and was favorably recommended by her Presiding Judge. However, respondent failed to secure a clearance from the SCSLA due to an outstanding loan, which was a prerequisite for the Supreme Court Certificate of Clearance. Despite the incomplete requirements, respondent left the country on her intended date without waiting for the OCA's action on her application. She returned on October 19, 2009.

• Leave Application: On July 10, 2009, the OCA received respondent’s application for leave for foreign travel, covering September 11 to October 11, 2009. The application was favorably endorsed by her Presiding Judge, Judge Arlene Lirag-Palabrica.
• Incomplete Requirements: OCA Circular No. 49-2003 requires court personnel applying for a travel authority to submit, among others, a clearance as to money and property accountability and a Supreme Court clearance. Respondent circulated her application for clearance but failed to secure clearance from the SCSLA due to an outstanding loan, rendering her application incomplete.
• Unauthorized Travel: Despite the incomplete requirements and the lack of an approved travel authority, respondent left the country on September 11, 2009, and returned on October 19, 2009. She claimed she honestly believed her application would be approved since she mailed it early and had her judge's recommendation.
• Belated OCA Action: The OCA only acted on respondent's application on November 26, 2009—more than two months after receiving it and well after respondent's departure—recommending disapproval due to the lack of clearance. Respondent was informed of the disapproval on January 6, 2010.

• Violation of OCA Circular: The OCA argued that respondent violated OCA Circular No. 49-2003 by traveling abroad without the required travel authority from the OCA.
• Incomplete Requirements: The OCA maintained that no action could be taken on the request for travel authority because respondent failed to comply with the clearance and accountability requirements, specifically the SCSLA clearance.
• Disciplinary Action: Section 67 of the Civil Service Omnibus Rules on Leave provides that any violation of leave laws, rules, or regulations is a ground for disciplinary action.

• Good Faith: Respondent admitted traveling without the authority but argued it was not her intention to violate the rules. She maintained that she mailed her leave application early and it was favorably recommended by her presiding judge, leading her to honestly believe it would be eventually approved by the Court.
• Constitutional Right to Travel (Raised in Dissent): While respondent did not raise the constitutional issue, the dissent asserted that OCA Circular No. 49-2003 unduly restricts the constitutional right to travel. The SCSLA clearance requirement was challenged as an invalid condition, as SCSLA is a private entity and the OCA cannot enforce private loan collections by restricting the right to travel.

• Violation of OCA Circular: Whether respondent violated OCA Circular No. 49-2003 by traveling abroad without a travel authority despite her application being incomplete.
• Applicability of Deemed-Approved Rule: Whether the deemed-approved rule under Section 49, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave excuses respondent's unauthorized travel.
• Validity of SCSLA Clearance: Whether the requirement of clearance from the SCSLA, a private entity, is a valid condition for the issuance of a travel authority.
• Constitutional Right to Travel: Whether OCA Circular No. 49-2003 constitutes an undue restriction on the constitutional right to travel.

• Violation of OCA Circular: Respondent was found guilty of violating OCA Circular No. 49-2003. Having knowledge of her incomplete requirements, specifically the lack of SCSLA clearance, her departure without awaiting approval constituted a violation of office rules. Her claim of good faith was unacceptable because she was aware she had not completed the requirements.
• Inapplicability of Deemed-Approved Rule: The rule in Commission on Appointments v. Paler, where a leave application is deemed approved if not acted upon within five working days, does not apply. Unlike in Paler, respondent was governed not only by CSC Rules but also by OCA Circular No. 49-2003; she failed to submit complete requirements; and there was no submission of clearance requirements to trigger the processing period.
• Validity of SCSLA Clearance: The SCSLA clearance requirement is valid. SCSLA membership is voluntary, and by joining and applying for a loan, respondent agreed to the undertakings and limitations set by the association, thereby waiving or constricting her right to travel to the extent of these voluntary obligations. The Court is not enforcing the collection of a loan but compliance with office regulations.
• Constitutional Right to Travel: The right to travel is not absolute. When a person joins the Judiciary, they assume duties with concomitant responsibilities and give up certain rights, such as the absolute right to travel, so that public service is not prejudiced. The regulation of foreign travel of court personnel is a valid exercise of the Court's administrative supervision, necessary for the orderly administration of justice.

• Limitation on the Right to Travel — The constitutional right to travel is not absolute and may be impaired by constitutional, statutory, and inherent limitations. Government employees, upon joining the service, submit to office rules and regulations, giving up the absolute right to travel so that public service is not prejudiced. The regulation of court personnel's foreign travel is necessary for the orderly administration of justice.
• Voluntary Limitation of Rights — By voluntarily joining an association (such as the SCSLA) and availing of its benefits, a government employee agrees to its regulations and knowingly commits to limitations affecting their rights, effectively waiving or constricting those rights by non-compliance with the requirements.
• Exception to the Deemed-Approved Rule — The rule that a leave application is deemed approved if not acted upon within five working days does not apply if the application is incomplete or if specific regulations (like OCA Circular No. 49-2003) impose additional requirements that were not met.

• "When one becomes a public servant, he or she assumes certain duties with their concomitant responsibilities and gives up some rights like the absolute right to travel so that public service would not be prejudiced."
• "In this limited sense, it can even be considered that the restriction or regulation of a court personnel’s right to travel is a concern for public safety, one of the exceptions to the non-impairment of one’s constitutional right to travel."
• "A court employee who plans to travel abroad must file his leave application prior to his intended date of travel with sufficient time allotted for his application to be processed and approved first by the Court. He cannot leave the country without his application being approved, much less assume that his leave application would be favorably acted upon."

• Commission on Appointments v. Paler, G.R. No. 172623, March 3, 2010 — Distinguished. The Court held that the deemed-approved rule in Paler did not apply because the employee in Paler was governed only by CSC Rules and submitted complete requirements, whereas respondent was governed by OCA Circular No. 49-2003 and failed to submit complete requirements.
• OAS-OCA v. Calacal, A.M. No. P-09-2670, October 16, 2009 — Followed. The Court reiterated that unawareness of OCA Circular No. 49-2003 is not an excuse for non-compliance, and a utility worker was previously reprimanded for traveling overseas without the required travel authority.
• Silverio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94284, April 8, 1991 — Cited. The Court referenced Silverio to illustrate an inherent limitation on the right to travel, specifically the power of trial courts to prohibit persons charged with a crime from leaving the country.

• Section 6, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Provides that the right to travel shall not be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. The Court applied this to show that the right to travel is not absolute.
• OCA Circular No. 49-2003 (B) — Requires all foreign travels of judges and court personnel to be with prior permission from the Supreme Court, and mandates the submission of complete requirements, including clearance as to money and property accountability, at least two weeks before the intended travel. Applied as the specific rule violated by respondent.
• Section 49, Rule XVI, Omnibus Rules on Leave — Provides that a leave application not acted upon within five working days shall be deemed approved. The Court held this provision inapplicable due to respondent's incomplete requirements.
• Section 5(6), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Grants the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. This provision empowers the Court to promulgate rules like OCA Circular No. 49-2003.
• Section 67, Civil Service Omnibus Rules on Leave — States that any violation of leave laws, rules, or regulations is a ground for disciplinary action.

Renato C. Corona (Chief Justice), Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe. (Jose Portugal Perez took no part.)

• Carpio, J. — Argued that respondent's leave application was deemed approved under Section 49, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave because the OCA failed to act within five working days from receipt. Asserted that requiring SCSLA clearance is an invalid restriction on the constitutional right to travel, as the SCSLA is a private entity and the OCA cannot enforce its loan collections by restricting travel. No law authorizes restricting the right to travel for private debt, and the right to travel can only be impaired in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as provided by law.