A.M. No. 86-8-10603-RTC January 31, 1987
Re: Request of Judge Esther N. Bans to Travel Abroad

FACTS

Judge Esther N. Bans, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Olongapo City, requested permission from the Supreme Court to travel abroad on official time to attend two international conferences in Seoul and New York. The Court, noting her heavy caseload of 396 cases including 175 criminal cases with detention prisoners, instructed the Court Administrator to confer with her. She was advised to expedite the trial of detention cases, submit a report thereon, and choose only one conference to attend, selecting the New York event. The Court Administrator subsequently recommended a limited approval for the New York trip only, with strict conditions.
Judge Bans failed to submit the required report on the detention cases despite a reiterated directive. Furthermore, she did not respond to a summons to appear before the Supreme Court regarding her application. It was later confirmed that she had departed the country, attending both conferences without the Court’s prior approval. Her leave application remained unsigned as action was contingent on the travel request’s approval. Upon her return, the Court required her to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against her.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Esther N. Bans should be held administratively liable for traveling abroad without the prior permission of the Supreme Court and for failing to comply with its directives.

RULING

Yes, Judge Bans is administratively liable. The Supreme Court reprimanded her with a warning. The Court rejected her explanation that she proceeded to prevent financial loss from non-refundable travel arrangements. The legal logic centers on the paramount duty of judges to prioritize public service and adhere strictly to judicial discipline and directives from the Supreme Court.
The Court emphasized that requests for foreign travel on official time are not presumed granted and are evaluated case-by-case based on the higher interests of the service, particularly considering court dockets and the welfare of detention prisoners. By making firm travel arrangements and payments before securing approval, Judge Bans presumptuously placed personal convenience and financial considerations above her official responsibilities. Her failure to submit the required case report, which she later claimed would have corrected a factual error about her caseload, demonstrated a disregard for the Court’s lawful orders and a lack of due diligence in managing her court docket. Her choice to “leave first, and explain later” constituted an unacceptable defiance of judicial authority and procedure. The ruling underscores that judges must exercise utmost care, promptness, and efficiency in their duties, including maintaining accurate and current knowledge of their caseloads, and must uphold the integrity of the judiciary by complying faithfully with administrative directives.