1. CAUNCA VS. SALAZAR [82 PHIL 851; NO.

L-2690; 1 JAN 1949]

Monday, February 09, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: This is an action for habeas corpus brought by Bartolome Caunca in behalf of his
cousin Estelita Flores who was employed by the Far Eastern Employment Bureau, owned
by Julia Salazar, respondent herein. An advanced payment has already been given to
Estelita by the employment agency, for her to work as a maid. However, Estelita wanted
to transfer to another residence, which was disallowed by the employment agency.
Further she was detained and her liberty was restrained. The employment agency
wanted that the advance payment, which was applied to her transportation expense
from the province should be paid by Estelita before she could be allowed to leave.
Issue: Whether or Not an employment agency has the right to restrain and detain a
maid without returning the advance payment it gave?
Held: An employment agency, regardless of the amount it may advance to a prospective
employee or maid, has absolutely no power to curtail her freedom of movement. The
fact that no physical force has been exerted to keep her in the house of the respondent
does not make less real the deprivation of her personal freedom of movement, freedom
to transfer from one place to another, freedom to choose one’s residence. Freedom
may be lost due to external moral compulsion, to founded or groundless fear, to
erroneous belief in the existence of an imaginary power of an impostor to cause harm if
not blindly obeyed, to any other psychological element that may curtail the mental
faculty of choice or the unhampered exercise of the will. If the actual effect of such
psychological spell is to place a person at the mercy of another, the victim is entitled to
the protection of courts of justice as much as the individual who is illegally deprived of
liberty by duress or physical coercion.
2. Genuino, et al. vs. De Lima, as Secretary of DOJG.R. No. 197930Macapagal-
Arroyo vs. De Lima, as Secretary of DOJG.R. No. 199034Arroyo vs De Lima, as
Secretary of DOJG.R. No. 199046April 17, 2018
FACTS:
These consolidated Petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer forthe
Issuance of Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO) and/or Writs of
PreliminaryInjunction under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assail the
constitutionality ofDepartment of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 41, series of 2010,
otherwise known as the Consolidated Rules and Regulations Governing Issuance
and Implementation of Hold Departure Orders, Watchlist Orders and Allow
Departure Orders , on the ground thatit infringes on the constitutional right to
travel.On May 25, 2010, then Acting DOJ Secretary Alberto C. Agra issued the
assailed DOJCircular No. 41, consolidating DOJ Circular Nos. 17 and 18, which
govern theissuance and implementation of HDOs, WLOs, and ADOs. After the
expiration of GMA’s term as President of the Republic of the Philippines anher
subsequent election as Pampanga representative, criminal complaints were
filedagainst her before the DOJ particularly plunder, malversation and/or illegal
use ofOWWA funds, illegal use of public funds, graft and corruption, violation of
the OEC,violation of the Code of Conduct on Ethical Standards for Public Officials
andqualified theft. In view of the foregoing criminal complaints, De Lima issued
DOJWLO No. 2011-422 against GMA pursuant to her authority under DOJ
Circular No. 41. She also ordered for the inclusion of GMA’s name in the Bureau
of Immigration (BI) watchlist.On October 20, 2011, two criminal complaints for
Electoral Sabotage and Violationof the OEC were filed against GMA and her
husband, Jose Miguel Arroyo. Followingthe filing of criminal complaints, De Lima
issued DOJ WLO No. 2011-573 againstGMA and Miguel Arroyo with a validity
period of 60 days, unless sooner terminatedor otherwise extended.Meanwhile,
in G.R. No. 197930, HDO No. 2011-64 was issued against Genuinos,among
others, after criminal complaints for Malversation and Violation of Sections3(e),
(g), (h) an (i) of R.A. No. 3019. The petitioners therein seek to annul and set
asidethe following orders issued by the former Secretary Leila De Lima, pursuant
to thesaid circular.

ISSUES:
1) Whether the DOJ has the authority to issue Circular No. 41; and 2) whether
there is ground to hold the former DOJ Secretary guilty of contempt of
Court.
HELD:
1) The issuance of DOJ Circular No. 41 has no legal basis. Under Sec 6, Art.3 of the
1987 Constitution provides three considerations that may permit a restrictionon the
right to travel: national security, public safety or public health . As a
furtherrequirement, there must be an explicit provision of statutory law or the
Rules of Court providing for the impairment. i To begin with, there is no law
particularly providing for the authority of the secretaryof justice to curtail the
exercise of the right to travel. To be clear, DOJ Circular No.41 is not a law. It is not a
legislative enactment which underwent the scrutiny andconcurrence of lawmakers,
and submitted to the President for approval. It is a mereadministrative issuance
apparently designed to carry out the provisions of an enablinglaw which the former
DOJ Secretary believed to be Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292,otherwise known as the
Administrative Code of 1987.It is, however, important to stress that before there
can even be a valid administrativeissuance, there must first be a showing that the
delegation of legislative power is itselfvalid. It is valid only if there is a law that (a) is
complete in itself, setting forth thereinthe policy to be executed, carried out, or
implemented by the delegate; and (b) fixes astandard the limits of which are
sufficiently determinate and determinable to whichthe delegate must conform in
the performance of his functions.A painstaking examination of the provisions being
relied upon by the former DOJSecretary will disclose that they do not particularly
vest the DOJ the authority to issueDOJ Circular No. 41 which effectively restricts the
right to travel through the issuanceof the WLOs and HDOs. Sections 1 and 3, Book
IV, Title III, Chapter 1 of E.O. No.292 did not authorize the DOJ to issue WLOs and
HDOs to restrict the constitutionalright to travel"
 3. LEAVE DIVISION V. HEUSDENS
FACTS:  This case stemmed from the leave application for foreign travel sent
through mail by Wilma Salvacion P. Heusdens (respondent), Staff Clerk IV of the
MunicipalTrial Court in Cities, Tagum City, Davao del Norte.  July 10, 2009:
the Employees Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services,Office of the
Court Administrator, received respondent's leave application forforeign travel
from September 11, 2009 to October 11, 2009. o Respondent left for abroad
without waiting for the result of her application. o No travel authority was
issued in her favor because she was not cleared of allher accountabilities. o
Respondent reported back to work on October 19, 2009.  November 26,
2009: OCA recommended the disapproval of respondent's leaveapplication. o It
advised that respondent be directed to make a written explanation of herfailure
to secure authority to travel abroad in violation of OCA Circular No.49-2003. o
CJ Puno approved the OCA recommendation.  January 6, 2010: OCA
informed respondent that her leave application wasdisapproved and her travel
was considered unauthorized. o She was directed to explain within 15 days
from notice her failure to complywith the OCA circular.  February 2, 2010:
respondent admitted having travelled overseas without therequired travel
authority. o She explained that it was not her intention to violate the rules as
she, in fact,mailed her leave application which was approved by her superior,
JudgeArlene Lirag-Palabrica, as early as June 26, 2009. o She honestly believed
that her leave application would be eventuallyapproved by the Court.  OCA:
found respondent to have violated OCA Circular No. 49-2003 for failing tosecure
the approval of her application for travel authority. o It recommended that the
administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regularadministrative matter and
that respondent be deemed guilty for violation ofOCA Circular No. 49-2003 and
be reprimanded with a warning that arepetition of the same or similar offense in
the future would be dealt withmore severely.
ISSUES"
"WON RESP Heusdens violated the OCA Circular No. 49-2003 "
HELD:
"Respondent cannot feign ignorance of this requirement because she had herapplication
for clearance circulated through the various divisions. o She failed to secure clearance
from the Supreme Court Savings and LoanAssociation (SCSLA) where she had an
outstanding loan.  There is no dispute, therefore, that although respondent submitted
her leaveapplication for foreign travel, she failed to comply with the clearance
andaccountability requirements"
4. "OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES- OFFICE OF THECOURT ADMINISTRATOR
v . JUDGE IGNACIO B. MACARINE A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770, 18 July 2012, SECOND
DIVISION (Brion, J .) The constitutional right to travel is not absolute since the
OCA may regulate the travelsof Judges and personnel to avoid disruption in the
administration of justice. Ofce of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued the
Circular No. 49- 2003 requiring all foreign travels of judges and court personnel
to be with prior permission from the Court. Moreover, a travel authority must
rst be secured from the OCA. Accordingly, Judges must submit the complete
requirements tothe OCA at least two weeks before the intended time of travel.
Judge Ignacio Macarine requested for authority to travel to Hongkong with his
family. Said travel was to be charged to Judge Macarine’s annual forcedleave.
However, Judge Macarine did not submit the complete requirements so
hisrequest for authority to travel remained unacted upon. Judge Macarine
proceeded with his travel abroad without the required travel authority. Judge
Macarine wasinformed by the OCA that his leave of absence had been
disapproved and histravel considered unauthorized by the Court. Accordingly,
the absences of JudgeMacarine shall not be deducted from his leave credits but
from his salary. TheOCA found Judge Macarine guilty of violation of OCA Circular
No. 49-2003 for traveling out of the country without ling the necessary
application for leave and without rst securing a travel authority from the Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Macarine is guilty of violation of OCA CircularNo. 49-
2003

HELD: The right to travel is guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the exerciseof
such right is not absolute. Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
allowsrestrictions on one’s right to travel provided that such restriction is in the
interestof national security, public safety or public health as may be provided by law.
This,however, should by no means be construed as limiting the Court’s inherent
powerof administrative supervision over lower courts.OCA Circular No. 49-2003 does
not restrict but merely regulates, byproviding guidelines to be complied by judges
and court personnel, before they can"