March 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. 12-2-11-MCTC : March 07, 2012]
UNAUTHORIZED EXTENSION OF TRAVEL ABROAD BY MIGUELITA D. VILLA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC), KIBAWE, BUKIDNON
A.M. No. 12-2-11-MCTC (Unauthorized Extension of Travel Abroad by Miguelita D. Villa, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Kibawe, Bukidnon). � Before this Court is a recommendation by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to consider as unauthorized the extension of travel abroad by a court personnel, Miguelita Villa, who is a Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Kibawe, Bukidon.
On 06 September 2010, the Court granted Villa authority to travel to New Zealand and Australia for the period 20 September 2010 to 20 October 2010.
On 08 October 2010, Villa, while abroad, mailed to the Acting Presiding Judge of the MCTC, her application for extension of her vacation leave from 21 October 2010 to 19 November 2010.
On 18 October 2010, the employee's Leave Division received a copy of the letter-application filed by Villa requesting an extension of her vacation leave. Villa returned to work on 22 November 2010.
On 04 January 2011, Chief Justice Renato Corona, acting on the recommendation of the OCA, disapproved the request for extension on the ground that the period for vacation leaves, including the extension thereof - whether spent abroad or within the Philippines - is limited to a maximum period of 30 days.
In a Letter dated 18 February 2011, Deputy Court Administrator Raul Villanueva informed Villa of the denial of her request for extension. Hence, the absences she incurred from 21 October 2010 to 19 November 2010 were considered unauthorized and would be deducted from her salary.
In her Comment dated 25 March 2011, Villa apologized for having extended her vacation leave without any authority from the Supreme Court. However, she reasoned that in September 2007, while in New Zealand, she applied for and was granted an extension of 10 days before the expiration of her travel authority. She believed that the procedure in 2007 was still being observed, and that her request for extension would be granted.
The OCA recommended that the absences of Villa be considered unauthorized and deducted from her salary and that she be sternly warned for having extended her travel abroad without a corresponding travel authority:[1]
RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended to the Honorable Court that:
a. The absences incurred by Ms. Miguelita D. Villa, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Kibawe, Bukidnon, for the period of October 21, 2010 to November 19, 2010 be considered UNAUTHORIZED, and deducted from her salary in accordance with Section 50, Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules on Leave; and
b. Ms. Villa be STERNLY WARNED for extending her travel abroad without the corresponding travel authority, and be reminded that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely by the Court.
The sole issue now before Us is whether to penalize Villa for extending her vacation leave without permission from this Court.
The factual and legal circumstances herein compel the Court to excuse Villa's extension of travel abroad in this instance.
Under A. M. No. 09-7-03-O, as amended, the maximum period for vacation leaves of court personnel, including extensions thereof and whether spent abroad or within the Philippines, has been limited to a period of 30 calendar days. However, this Resolution was passed only on 23 November 2010. Although the Resolution was amended on 01 February 2011 to change the designation from calendar days to working days, the 30-day period remained the same.[3] Hence, prior to 23 November 2010, there was no express 30-day limitation on vacation leaves for foreign travels for court personnel.
Thus, on 18 October 2010, when the Employee's Leave Division received Villa's request for an extension of vacation leave, there appears no rule that limited the period of vacation leaves. That the Court allowed extensions of vacation leaves abroad was in fact demonstrated by Villa's previous travel in 2007, when the Court did not find any reason to sanction her for her extended stay in New Zealand. Moreover, the 30-day limitation was imposed only a day after she had already reported back to work. It would be unjust for her to be punished for extending her leave, when there was at that time no such court regulation disallowing that practice.
Significantly, the request of Villa was not timely acted upon by this Court. This omission cannot be used against her. Under the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, an application for leave should be acted upon within five working days after its receipt.[4] In this case, the Employee's Leave Division received the application of Villa for extension on 18 October 2010 and thus, had 5 working days, or until 25 October 2010, to act on the application.[5] Unfortunately, the denial of the request for extension was made only on 04 January 2011, well beyond the five-day limitation. Worse, the action on her request was made after she had already reported back to work on 22 November 2010.
The Court cannot fault Villa for relying on the prevailing rules and her past experience in assuming that her application for extension of vacation leave would be granted after the lapse of the five-day period.cralaw
WHEREFORE, Miguelita Villa's extended period of leave abroad from 21 October 2010 to 19 November 2010 is deemed APPROVED and AUTHORIZED. These authorized leaves shall be deducted not from her salaries, but from the number of her vacation leaves.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] OCA Report dated 30 January 2012.[2] "Re: Setting of the Maximum Period of Travel Authorities/Vacation Leave of Lower Court Officials and Personnel. - The Court Resolved to APPROVE the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator that for lower court officials and personnel, the maximum period for vacation leave of absence including the extension thereof, whether to be spent abroad or within the Philippines, be limited to a maximum period of thirty (30) calendar days, except in cases of study leave/scholarship grants or sick leave with medical certificate." (A. M. No. 09-7-03-O dated 23 November 2010)
[3] "Setting of the Maximum Period of Vacation Leave of Lower Court Officials and Personnel. � The Court Resolved to AMEND the resolution of November 23, 2010 to provide that the maximum period for vacation leave of absence including the extension thereof, whether to be spent abroad or within the Philippines, be extended to a maximum period of thirty (30) working days, except in cases of study leave/scholarship giants or sick leave with medical certificate." (A. M. No. 09-7-03-O, as amended on 01 February 2011)
[4] "Period within which to act on leave application. - Whenever the application for leave of absence, including terminal leave, is not acted upon by the head of agency or his duly authorized representative within five (5) working days after receipt thereof, the application for leave of absence shall be deemed approved.� (Omnibus Rules on Leave, Rule XVI, Sec. 49)
[5] The five-day period from 18 October 2010 would fall on 23 October 2010, which is a Saturday. The next working day would be a Monday, 25 October 2010.