RE: REQUEST OF JUDGE ESTHER N. BANS TO TRAVEL ABROAD.

Judge Esther N. Bans, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 72,
Olongapo City, was extended an invitation by the International Law Association
[Philippine Branch] to attend the 62^nd Conference of the International Law
Association [ILA] in Seoul, South Korea on August 24 to 29, 1986, and to
participate in the Biennial Conference of the International Bar Association
[IBA] in New York, U.S.A., scheduled for September 14 to 19, 1986. In a letter
dated August 4, 1986, she requested the Court’s permission to travel abroad on
official time for the period beginning August 24 to September 19, 1986. ^[1]

In view of her caseload of 396 cases, 175 of which were reportedly criminal
cases with detention prisoners,^[2] the
Court en banc instructed the Court Administrator, Hon. Leo D.
Medialdea, to confer with Judge Esther N. Bans. On August 22, 1986, she came to
the Office of the Court Administrator [OCA] and was advised to expedite the
trial of cases with detention prisoners and to submit a report thereon before
her departure for abroad. She was likewise asked which of the two ^[2] conferences she preferred to attend, and
she chose the conference in New York. The Court Administrator then recommended
to the Court en banc in a memorandum dated August 25, 1986 that Judge
Esther N. Bans be allowed to travel only for a period of 19 days or from
September 1-19, 1986, at no government expense, the period of her actual
attendance in the IBA Conference in New York, U.S.A., to be on official time,
but the rest of her travel period to be charged against her forfeitable
leave.^[3]

Meanwhile, no report on the disposition of the 175 criminal cases with
detention prisoners was submitted to the Court by Judge Bans. The directive was
reiterated on August 28, 1986 by the Court en banc, directing the Court
Administrator to require Judge Bans to submit said report.

On September 1, 1986, the Office of the Court Administrator wired Judge Bans
to come immediately to the Supreme Court in connection with her application for
travel abroad. There was no reply and the Judge never came. Neither did Judge
Bans submit the required report.

In a telegram received on September 9, 1986, Executive Judge Nicias O.
Mendoza, Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City, informed the Office of the Court
Administrator, in compliance with its directive, that Judge Bans last reported
at his office in the afternoon of August 22, 1986.

The Court Administrator was later informed by the Chief Justice, Hon. Claudio
Teehankee, that Associate Justice Florentino Feliciano saw Judge Esther N. Bans
at Seoul, South Korea and that she was on her way to the United States of
America. On the other hand, Atty. Adelaida Cabe- Baumann, Chief Administrative
Services, Supreme Court, informed the Court, thru her certification, that the
leave application of Judge Esther N. Bans from August 26 to September 24, 1986
was not signed and/or approved by the Court Administrator, inasmuch as action
thereon was dependent upon the approval of her request to travel abroad.

From all indications, Judge Esther N. Bans left the country to attend the two
^[2] international conferences without
prior approval of her request to travel abroad.

On October 16, 1986, the Court en banc issued a resolution ^[4] requiring Judge Esther N. Bans to explain
within ten ^[10] days from notice why
disciplinary action should not be taken against her for leaving the country to
attend the aforesaid international conferences without prior permission of the
Court.

In her explanation and/or comment^[5]
Judge Bans attributed her having left the country to attend the ILA Conference
in Seoul, South Korea and IBA Conference in New York, U.S.A. without prior
approval of the Court of her request to travel abroad to “the more pressing need
to prevent unnecessary forfeiture of so much hard- earned money [$550] out of
the total expenditure of $1,290.00 for both conferences”. She said that upon
being advised by the Court Administrator that she will only be credited official
time for the IBA Conference in New York, she requested her travel agency for
travel adjustments but was informed that it could not work out feasible
arrangements or adjustments in her plane tickets nor cancel the hotel
reservation already paid proportionately with other lady delegates, so that
under the circumstances, she had to push through with the original timetable,
taking the necessary risks and the better option of exercising frugality.^[6]

We are not satisfied with the reason proferred by Judge Esther N. Bans in
totally disregarding the directive of the Court. As a judicial officer
delicately tasked with the administration of justice, the higher interests of
public service should, at all times, be above all other considerations.
Admittedly, Judge Bans made travel arrangements even before approval by the
Court of her request to travel abroad on official time. In fact, she paid in
advance the airplane tickets and hotel accommodations. Judges should be reminded
that requests for permission to travel abroad on official time should not be
presumed granted by the Court. Guided by considerations of higher interests of
the service, the Court painstakingly looks into every request on a case-to-case
basis. Judge Bans should have informed the Court before her departure for abroad
of the circumstances which compelled her to push through with her original
timetable. But she chose to leave first, and explain later.

The Court does not approve of such practice.

Moreover, Judge Bans was remiss in not complying, at the earliest opportunity
with the directive of the Court requiring her to submit a report on the
disposition of the 175 criminal cases with detention prisoners pending before
her sala. In her report^[7] dated October
22, 1986, apparently submitted to the Court upon her return from abroad, Judge
Bans informed the Court Administrator that the number of criminal cases with
detention prisoners was erroneously reported to be about 175 when actually upon
verification of the records, there were only 89 criminal cases with 57 detention
prisoners, mostly involved in drug cases for which no bail had been recommended
by the prosecution. Had she been mindful of the directive of the Court, We could
have at least been apprised of such fact and could have acted more favorably on
her request. In this connection, it is well to remind Judge Bans of the exigent
need for promptness and efficiency in the discharge of official duties by
occupants of the bench. For this purpose, they should make a regular periodic
inventory of their cases to enable them to know their status. They must ever be
fully cognizant of the state of their dockets.^[8]

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, Judge Esther N. Bans, Presiding
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Olongapo City, is hereby REPRIMANDED
with a warning that a repetition of similar action will be dealt with more
severely by this Court. Let a copy of this resolution be attached to the
concerned Judge’s personal records.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr.,
Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, and Bidin, JJ., concur.

^[2] p. 2, Rollo.

^[3] p. 6, Rollo.

^[4] p. 10, Rollo.

^[5] pp. 13-19, Rollo.

^[6] p. 14, Rollo.

^[7] pp. 25-26, Rollo.

^[8] Juan vs. Arias, 72 SCRA
409; Meimban vs. Balite, 72 SCRA 380.