FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. SDC-20-8-J. January 15, 2020.][Formerly A.M. No. 19-09-01-SDC (Unauthorized Travel Abroad of Judge Rasad S. Laguindab, Presiding Judge, Shari'a District Court, Marawi City and his wife Ms. Samia R. Usman, Court Interpreter I, Shari'a Judicial District, Malabang, Lanao del Sur)]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs.PRESIDING JUDGE RASAD S. LAGUINDAB, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT, MARAWI CITY; AND COURT INTERPRETER I SAMIA R. USMAN, SHARI'A JUDICIAL DISTRICT, MALABANG LANAO DEL SUR, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 15, 2020which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. SDC-20-8-J (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Presiding Judge Rasad S. Laguindab, Shari'a District Court, Marawi City; and Court Interpreter I Samia R. Usman, Shari'a Judicial District, Malabang Lanao del Sur) [formerly A.M. No. 19-09-01-SDC (Unauthorized Travel Abroad of Judge Rasad S. Laguindab, Presiding Judge, Shari'a District Court, Marawi City and his wife Ms. Samia R. Usman, Court Interpreter I, Shari'a Judicial District, Malabang, Lanao del Sur)]
On May 17, 2019, Presiding Judge Rasad S. Laguindab (Shari'a District Court, Marawi City) and his wife, Samia R. Usman (Court Interpreter I, Shari'a Judicial District, Malabang, Lanao del Sur) applied for vacation leave from May 20, 2019 to June 6, 2019 to perform Umrah rites (religious pilgrimage) in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. The spouses, however, left the country, sans an approved travel authority. 1 HTcADC
By Memorandum 2 dated May 20, 2019, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) considered Judge Laguindab's and Usman's travel dates as unauthorized leaves of absence on ground that the same were not covered by an approved travel authority. The OCA further directed the Financial Management Office (FMO) to withhold their salaries and benefits effective on their respective travel dates pursuant to Item No. 5 of OCA Circular No. 59-2013 dated May 6, 2013 (Re: Guidelines on Requests for Travel Authority and Extension of Travel Abroad), the same to be released upon receipt of notice from the Employees Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, OCA, that the two have already reported back to work.
In their Letter-Explanation 3 dated June 14, 2019, Judge Laguindab and Usman explained why they pursued their vacation leave abroad without the required travel authority and requested the release of their salaries and benefits as they had already reported back for work on June 7, 2019. They essentially averred: they were able to file, albeit only a few days prior to their scheduled travel abroad, the requirements for Authority to Travel. The belated filing was due to their busy schedule. Judge Laguindab was manning five (5) Shari'a District Courts in different islands of Mindanao. They honestly believed that they would be extended the same treatment as before when the OCA allowed them to leave for Mecca and just sent their travel authority to their office after they had already left the country. The delay in the release of the salaries and benefits prevented Judge Laguindab from attending the hearings in Cotabato City, causing further delay of cases pending before the five (5) Shari'a district courts under him.
Under Memorandum 4 dated July 31, 2019, the OCA recommended Judge Laguindab's and Usman's leave applications from May 20, 2019 to June 6, 2019 be disapproved, their absences, considered unauthorized, and their letter-explanation, referred to the Legal Office, OCA for appropriate action.
On September 27, 2019, the Office of Administrative Services (OAS), through Atty. Caridad Pabello directed 5 the Financial Management Office (FMO) to release Judge Laguindab's and Usman's salaries in view of their submission of Certifications 6 both dated September 18, 2019 that they had already returned to work. CAIHTE
The Report and Recommendation of the OCA
The OCA, through Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez and Deputy Court Administrator Leo Tolentino Madrazo, recommended 7 that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; and Judge Laguindab and Usman, reminded to strictly adhere to the provisions of OCA Circular No. 59-2013 dated May 6, 2013, with warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
The OCA found Judge Laguindab and Usman liable for violating OCA Circular No. 59-2013, specifically Item Nos. 2 and 6, viz.:
Item No. 2:
The complete documentary requirements must be submitted to and received by the OCA not earlier than two (2) months before the intended departure date but not later than ten (10) working days before said date. Otherwise, the request shall not be entertained.
Item No. 6:
Judges and court personnel who shall leave the country without a Travel Authority or extend his/her travel abroad without the approval of the extension of his/her Travel Authority shall be subject to disciplinary action, and all corresponding absences incurred shall be considered as unauthorized leave of absence.
According to the OCA, the Employees' Leave Division received Judge Laguindab's and Usman's papers only three (3) days prior to their intended travel. The same were no longer processed for non-compliance with the prescribed ten (10) days under the circular. Their unauthorized travel abroad warrants disciplinary action. But a mere reminder will suffice in view of two (2) mitigating circumstances in their favor, i.e., their being first time offenders and their twenty (20) years of service in the judiciary.
Ruling
The Court agrees with the factual findings of the OCA and partly adopts its recommendation.
Indeed, Judge Laguindab and Usman violated OCA Circular No. 59-2013, specifically Item Nos. 2 and 6 thereof requiring that an application for travel authority and the corresponding documentary requirements be submitted to the OCA at least ten (10) working days before the intended departure date. As it was, they traveled abroad, sans a duly approved travel authority. They applied for travel authority and submitted the requirements therefor only on May 17, 2019, three (3) days before their intended travel on May 20, 2019. Judge Laguindab cannot validly assert his busy schedule to justify his non-compliance with the ten (10)-day requirement. More so since OCA Circular No. 59-2013 contains an express caveat that applications received by the OCA less than ten (10) days before the intended travel shall not be entertained.
Rule 10, Section 50, paragraph (F) (3) of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS) provides that violation of reasonable office rules and regulations like subject OCA Circular 59-2013 is a light offense punishable by reprimand for the first offense, suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second offense, and dismissal from the service for the third offense. aScITE
In OAS, OCA v. Calacal, 8 the Court reprimanded a utility worker for leaving the country without securing a travel authority.
In Leave Division, OAS, OCA v. Heusdens, 9 a court employee left the country without waiting for approval of her application for travel authority. The Court admonished and warned her against repetition of the same or similar act considering that it was her first offense and she was not informed of the denial of her application within a reasonable time.
It appearing that this is Judge Laguindab's and Usman's first offense and considering their twenty (20) years of service in the judiciary, the penalty of reprimand is in order.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Rasad S. Laguindab and Court Interpreter I Samia R. Usman liable for violation of OCA Circular No. 59-2013. They are REPRIMANDED with warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. DETACa
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 19.
2.Id. at 17.
3.Id. at 3.
4.Id. at 4-5.
5.Id. at 6-7.
6.Id. at 8-9.
7.Id. at 19-21.
8. 619 Phil. 1, 3 (2009).
9. 678 Phil. 328, 347 (2011).