OCA vs. Macarine

Judges and court personnel who travel abroad without the prior travel authority mandated by OCA Circular No. 49-2003 commit a less serious charge of violating a Supreme Court directive, punishable under Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court; however, the penalty may be mitigated by the respondent’s acknowledgment of the infraction, remorse, advanced age, family circumstances, and other equitable considerations, in line with Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. The circular’s requirement is a valid regulation, not an unconstitutional restriction, of the right to travel.

OCA Circular No. 49-2003, issued on May 20, 2003, mandates that all foreign travels of judges and court personnel, regardless of duration, must be covered by a prior travel authority from the Office of the Court Administrator. Applicants must submit a letter-request stating the purpose of travel, an application for leave favorably recommended by the Executive Judge, and a certification from the Statistics Division on the condition of the judge’s docket. Complete requirements must be received at least two weeks before the intended travel; departure without an issued travel authority subjects the individual to disciplinary action. The circular was promulgated pursuant to the Supreme Court’s constitutional power of administrative supervision over lower courts, aimed at ensuring docket management and preventing disruption in the administration of justice.

• Nature: Administrative complaint against Judge Ignacio B. Macarine, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Gen. Luna, Surigao del Norte, for violation of OCA Circular No. 49-2003, which requires prior travel authority for foreign travel.
• Request for Travel Authority: On August 13, 2009, respondent wrote then Court Administrator Justice Jose Portugal Perez requesting authority to travel to Hongkong with his family from September 10 to 14, 2009, to celebrate his 65th birthday. He stated the travel would be charged to his annual forced leave but did not attach the required application for leave. The request was incomplete and remained unacted upon.
• The Trip and OCA’s Response: Respondent proceeded with the Hongkong trip without a travel authority. On January 28, 2010, the OCA informed him that his leave for September 9-15, 2009 had been disapproved, his travel was unauthorized, and his salary would be deducted for the seven-day absence under Section 50 of the Omnibus Rules on Leave. He was also required to explain his failure to comply with the circular.
• Respondent’s Explanation: In his February 25, 2010 letter, respondent narrated that his daughter, a nurse in New Jersey, USA, gave the Hongkong trip as a gift for his 65th birthday. In the first week of September 2009, his daughter informed him that she had booked hotel accommodations from September 13 to 15, 2009. He flew from Surigao City to Manila on September 9, 2009, intending to complete the travel authority requirements at the Supreme Court the next day. Faced with time constraints and believing it futile to complete the requirements before the scheduled flight, he opted not to finish the process and traveled anyway, intending to comply upon his return. He acknowledged his mistake, expressed regret, promised not to repeat the infraction, and requested that his absences be charged to his leave credits instead of being deducted from his salary.
• OCA Evaluation: The OCA found the respondent guilty of violating OCA Circular No. 49-2003 for traveling out of the country without filing the necessary leave application and without securing a travel authority. It recommended a fine of P5,000 and salary deduction for the disapproved leave.

• Mitigating Circumstances: Respondent maintained that the trip was a gift from his daughter and that he traveled to Manila to secure the travel authority but was pressed for time; he intended to complete the requirements after returning. He acknowledged his error and expressed sincere remorse, promising not to commit the same infraction again.
• Leave Credits vs. Salary Deduction: Respondent requested that his absences be charged against his accumulated leave credits rather than being deducted from his salary.

• Violation of OCA Circular No. 49-2003: Whether respondent Judge Macarine violated the circular by traveling abroad without a travel authority from the OCA.
• Constitutionality of the Travel-Authority Requirement: Whether the requirement to secure prior travel authority impermissibly restricts the constitutional right to travel.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the recommended fine and salary deduction should be imposed, or whether mitigating circumstances warrant a lesser penalty.

• Violation of OCA Circular No. 49-2003: The violation was established. Respondent requested authority to travel but failed to submit the complete requirements, causing the request to remain unacted upon, and he proceeded abroad without the issued travel authority. The circular’s requirements were not complied with, and his subsequent explanation did not negate the infraction.
• Constitutionality of the Travel-Authority Requirement: The requirement is a valid regulation, not an unconstitutional restriction. Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution permits limitations on the right to travel in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, but this does not curtail the Court’s inherent administrative supervision over lower courts. OCA Circular No. 49-2003 does not prohibit travel; it merely regulates it by imposing guidelines to ensure management of court dockets and avoid disruption in the administration of justice. To “restrict” is to restrain or prohibit; to “regulate” is to govern or direct according to rule. The travel authority operates in tandem with the requirement of a certification on docket condition, ensuring that a judge has resolved all cases within the constitutionally mandated periods before leaving.
• Proper Penalty: Under Section 9(4), Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, violation of Supreme Court directives and circulars is a less serious charge punishable by suspension of one to three months or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000. However, Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service allows the disciplining authority to consider mitigating circumstances. Respondent’s advanced age, the trip being a gift from his daughter, his attempt to secure the authority in Manila despite time constraints, his candid acknowledgment of the infraction, and his genuine remorse were deemed mitigating. Judicial precedents support leniency under such equitable considerations. Accordingly, the penalty was reduced to admonition with a warning that a similar future violation would merit a more severe sanction. The OCA’s recommendation to deduct his salary for the seven unauthorized days, without charging his leave credits, was approved.

• Regulation versus Restriction of the Right to Travel — The constitutional right to travel under Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution is not absolute; it may be restricted only by law in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health. A Supreme Court administrative circular requiring judges and court personnel to secure prior travel authority from the OCA does not constitute a “restriction” but a “regulation”: it governs and directs according to rule, for the purpose of managing court dockets and preventing disruption in the administration of justice. The requirement is a valid exercise of the Court’s inherent power of administrative supervision over all lower courts and personnel.
• Violation of Supreme Court Circulars as a Less Serious Charge — Under Section 9(4), Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, violation of Supreme Court directives, rules, and circulars constitutes a less serious charge, punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one month nor more than three months, or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000.
• Mitigation in Administrative Penalties — Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service vests the disciplining authority with discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in the imposition of the penalty. Factors such as the respondent’s length of service, acknowledgment of the infraction and genuine remorse, advanced age, family circumstances, and other humanitarian and equitable considerations may warrant a penalty lower than the prescribed range.

• “True, the right to travel is guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the exercise of such right is not absolute. … OCA Circular No. 49-2003 does not restrict but merely regulates, by providing guidelines to be complied by judges and court personnel, before they can go on leave to travel abroad. To ‘restrict’ is to restrain or prohibit a person from doing something; to ‘regulate’ is to govern or direct according to rule.” — This passage distills the doctrinal basis for upholding the circular’s validity, distinguishing between an unconstitutional restriction and a permissible administrative regulation.
• “We consider the outlined circumstances as mitigating. Following judicial precedents, the respondent deserves some degree of leniency in imposing upon him the appropriate penalty.” — This statement encapsulates the Court’s exercise of discretion to temper the penalty in light of equitable considerations.

• Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services-OCA v. Heusdens, A.M. No. P-11-2927, December 13, 2011 — Cited in the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno (joined by Justice Carpio) for the proposition that requiring judges and court personnel to secure prior travel authority unduly impairs the constitutional right to travel, and that the broader guidelines on foreign travel merit a holistic review.

• Section 6, Article III, 1987 Constitution — Right to travel. The Court invoked the provision to clarify that while the right may be restricted by law in specific interests, the OCA circular does not amount to a restriction but a legitimate regulation ancillary to the Court’s administrative supervision.
• Section 15(1) and (2), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Mandates that all cases or matters be decided within prescribed periods (three months for lower courts). The circular’s requirement of a docket certification is grounded on this constitutional directive, ensuring a judge’s compliance before traveling abroad.
• OCA Circular No. 49-2003 — Guidelines on Requests for Travel Abroad and Extensions for Travel/Stay Abroad. The circular was the substantive rule violated; its procedural prerequisites (letter-request, leave application, docket certification) and sanction clause formed the basis of the administrative charge.
• Section 50, Omnibus Rules on Leave — Effect of unauthorized leave. An employee absent without approved leave shall not receive salary for the period of unauthorized absence, and the absence shall not be deducted from accumulated leave credits. Applied to approve the salary deduction for respondent’s seven-day unauthorized leave.
• Section 9(4), Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court — Classifies violation of Supreme Court directives and circulars as a less serious charge, prescribing the applicable range of penalties for the offense.
• Section 53, Rule IV, Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Grants the disciplining authority discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in penalty imposition. This was the basis for reducing the penalty to admonition.

Justices Carpio, Abad, and Reyes concurred. Justice Carpio joined the concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno. Justice Sereno wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part (summarized below). Justice Abad was designated additional member in lieu of Justice Perez.

• Justice Sereno, joined by Justice Carpio — Concurred that Judge Macarine should be sanctioned for failing to file an application for leave and a report on his caseload prior to traveling abroad. Dissented, however, on the issue of penalizing the judge for failing to secure a travel authority. Argued that requiring judges and court personnel to obtain prior permission to travel abroad unduly impairs the constitutional right to travel, and that during an approved leave a judge or employee should be free to travel as any other citizen, without the Court requiring additional permission or inquiring into the purpose of the trip. The dissent urged a comprehensive review of the travel authority guidelines.