7/25/2019 197 OCA vs Ignacio.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/197-oca-vs-ignaciodocx 1/2

A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770 July 18, 2012

(Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-2255-MTJ)

OFFICE OF ADMINIT!ATI"E E!"ICE-OFFICE OF T#E CO$!T ADMINIT!ATO!, Complainant,

vs.

J$D%E I%NACIO &. MACA!INE, Mu'*+l Cru Tr+l Cour, %e'. u'+, ur+o /el Nore, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

&!ION, J.:

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) filed the present administrative case against udge Ignacio !. "acarine #respondent$ for violation

of OCA Circular No. %&'())*+ dated "a (), ())*.

OCA Circular No. %&'())* re-uires that all foreign travels of udges and court personnel, regardless of the num/er of das, must /e 0ith prio

permission from the Court. A travel authorit must /e secured from the OCA udges must su/mit the follo0ing re-uirements1

#+.$ application or letter're-uest addressed to the Court Administrator stating the purpose of the travel a/road2

#(.$ application for leave covering the period of the travel a/road, favora/l recommended / the E3ecutive udge2 and

#*.$ certification from the Statistics Division, Court "anagement Office, OCA as to the condition of the doc4et.(

The complete re-uirements should /e su/mitted to and received / the OCA at least t0o 0ee4s /efore the intended time of travel. No action

shall /e ta4en on re-uests for travel authorit 0ith incomplete re-uirements.*

udges and personnel 0ho shall leave the countr 0ithout travel authorit issued / the OCA shall /e su/ect to disciplinar action.%

On August +*, ())&, the respondent 0rote then Court Administrator, no0 Associate ustice ose 5ortugal 5ere6, re-uesting for authorit to

travel to 7ong4ong 0ith his famil for the period of Septem/er +) ' +%, ())& 0here he 0ould cele/rate his 89th /irthda. The respondent stated

that his travel a/road shall /e charged to his annual forced leave. 7o0ever, he did not su/mit the corresponding application for leave. :or his

failure to su/mit the complete re-uirements, his re-uest for authorit to travel remained unacted upon. The respondent proceeded 0ith his

travel a/road 0ithout the re-uired travel authorit from the OCA.

On anuar (;, ()+),9

 the respondent 0as informed / the OCA that his leave of a/sence for the period of Septem/er &'+9, ())& had /eendisapproved and his travel considered unauthori6ed / the Court. 7is a/sences shall not /e deducted from his leave credits /ut from his salar

corresponding to the seven #<$ das that he 0as a/sent, pursuant to Section 9) of the Omni/us Rules on =eave. 8 The respondent 0as also

re-uired to su/mit his e3planation on his failure to compl 0ith OCA Circular No. %&'())*.

In his letter'e3planation dated :e/ruar (9, ()+), the respondent narrated that his daughter, a nurse 0or4ing in Ne0 erse, >SA, gave him a

trip to 7ong4ong as a gift for his 89th /irthda. In the first 0ee4 of Septem/er ())&, he received a call from his daughter that she had alread

/oo4ed him, together 0ith his 0ife and t0o sons, in a hotel in 7ong4ong from Septem/er +* to +9, ())&. The fle0 in to "anila from Surigao

Cit on Septem/er &, ())&, intending to prepare the necessar papers for his authorit to travel at the Supreme Court the follo0ing da

7o0ever, sensing time constraint and thin4ing of the futilit of completing the re-uirements /efore their scheduled flight, he opted not to

immediatel complete the re-uirements and simpl 0ent ahead 0ith their travel a/road. 7e thought of su/mitting his compliance upon his

return to "anila. 7e ac4no0ledged his mista4e and regretted his failure to compl 0ith OCA Circular No. %&'())*. 7e promised not to commit

the same infraction again. 7e further re-uested for reconsideration of the OCA?s intended action to deduct his salar corresponding to the

seven #<$ das that he 0as a/sent, instead of charging his a/sences to his leave credits.

In an Evaluation Report dated Septem/er 8, ()+), the OCA found the respondent guilt of violation of OCA Circular No. %&'())* for traveling

out of the countr 0ithout filing the necessar application for leave and 0ithout first securing a travel authorit from the Court. The OCA

recommended1

a$ this matter /e RE'DOC@ETED as a regular administrative matter2

/$ udge Ignacio !. "acarine, "CTC, en. =una, Surigao del Norte, /e :INED in the amount of 59,))).)) for Biolation for Circula

No. %&'())* dated "a (), ())*2 and c$ the :inancial "anagement Office, :inance Division, OCA, /e DIRECTED to DED>CT the

amount e-uivalent to the seven #<$ das salar of udge Ignacio "acarine as a result of his disapproved and unauthori6ed leave of

a/sence pursuant to Section 9), Omni/us Rules on =eave, 0ithout deducting his leave credits thereof. emphases supplied

7/25/2019 197 OCA vs Ignacio.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/197-oca-vs-ignaciodocx 2/2

True, the right to travel is guaranteed / the Constitution.1âwphi1 7o0ever, the e3ercise of such right is not a/solute. Section 8, Article III of the

+&;< Constitution allo0s restrictions on one?s right to travel provided that such restriction is in the interest of national securit, pu/lic safet or

pu/lic health as ma /e provided / la0. This, ho0ever, should / no means /e construed as limiting the Court?s inherent po0er o

administrative supervision over lo0er courts. OCA Circular No. %&'())* does not restrict /ut merel regulates, / providing guidelines to /e

complied / udges and court personnel, /efore the can go on leave to travel a/road. To restrict is to restrain or prohi/it a person from doing

something2 to regulate is to govern or direct according to rule.

To ensure management of court doc4ets and to avoid disruption in the administration of ustice, OCA Circular No. %&'())* re-uires a udge 0ho

0ishes to travel a/road to su/mit, together 0ith his application for leave of a/sence dul recommended for approval / his E3ecutive udge, a

certification from the Statistics Division, Court "anagement Office of the OCA, as to the condition of his doc4et, /ased on his Certificate of

Service for the month immediatel preceding the date of his intended travel, that he has decided and resolved all cases or incidents 0ithin three

#*$ months from date of su/mission, pursuant to Section +9#+$ and #($, Article BIII of the +&;< Constitution.<

:or traveling a/road 0ithout having /een officiall allo0ed / the Court, the respondent is guilt of violation of OCA Circular No. %&'())*. >nde

Section &#%$, Rule +%) of the Revised Rules of Court, violation of Supreme Court directives and circular is considered a less serious charge

and, therefore, punisha/le / suspension from office 0ithout salar and other /enefits for not less than one #+$ month nor more than three #*$

months2 or a fine of more than 5+),))).)) /ut not e3ceeding 5(),))).)).;

Section 9*, Rule IB of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service grants the disciplining authorit the discretion to consider

mitigating circumstances in the imposition of the proper penalt. The Court had in several instances refrained from imposing the actual penalties

in the presence of mitigating facts, such as the emploee?s length of service, ac4no0ledgement of his or her infractions and feelings of remorse

for the same, advanced age, famil circumstances, and other humanitarian and e-uita/le considerations.

In the present case, the respondent, after learning that his daughter had alread /oo4ed him and his famil in a hotel in 7ong4ong, immediatel

0ent to "anila to secure his travel authorit from the Court. 7o0ever, 0ith the short period of time from their arrival in "anila on Septem/er &,

())& up to the time of their /oo4ing in 7ong4ong from Septem/er +* to +9, ())&, he 0as pressed for time and opted not to complete the

re-uired travel authorit, 0ith the intention of securing one after his travel. The respondent regretted his failure to compl 0ith the re-uirements

of OCA Circular No. %&'())*. 7e ac4no0ledged his mista4e and promised not to commit the same infraction in the future.

Fe consider the outlined circumstances as mitigating. :ollo0ing udicial precedents, the respondent deserves some degree of lenienc in

imposing upon him the appropriate penalt.

F7ERE:ORE, respondent udge Ignacio !. "acarine, "unicipal Circuit Trial Court, en. =una, Surigao del Norte, is here/ given the

 AD"ONITION that he acted irresponsi/l 0hen he opted not to immediatel secure a travel authorit and is saved onl from the full force that

his violation carries / the attendant mitigating circumstances. 7e is also FARNED that the commission of a similar violation in the future 0ill

merit a more severe penalt. The recommendation of the Office of the Court Administration that his a/sences, 0hich 0ere unauthori6ed, shall

not /e deducted from his leave credits /ut from his salar is here/ A55ROBED.

SO ORDERED.