G.R. No. P-09-2646; June 18, 2012
Judge Amado S. Caguioa (ret.), Complainant, vs. Elizabeth G. Aucena, Court Legal Researcher II, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant, the retired Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 4, Baguio City, charged respondent, a Court Legal Researcher II of the same branch, with Dishonesty and Falsification. The charge stemmed from respondent’s alteration of a June 28, 2007 Order issued by complainant in a custody case. The original order noted the respondent mother’s agreement to give custody of her three minor children to their paternal aunt, with visitorial rights. After complainant’s retirement in November 2007, respondent, in January 2008, instructed a stenographer to add a final sentence to the order stating, “In view of the agreement of the parties, this case is hereby DISMISSED.” She then caused the distribution of this altered order.
Respondent admitted to causing the insertion but claimed she acted in good faith to complete what she perceived as an incomplete order, believing a dismissal was necessary to formally terminate the case and assist the minors in processing travel documents. She denied attempting to antedate the receipt of the altered order and expressed remorse. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent guilty of dishonesty and recommended a six-month suspension, which the Court initially adopted.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Elizabeth G. Aucena is administratively liable for her act of altering a judicial order.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of Simple Misconduct, not Dishonesty. The Court clarified that dishonesty requires a deliberate intent to deceive for personal gain. Here, respondent’s act, while unquestionably improper, was not shown to be motivated by ill will or a desire for personal benefit. Her explanation that she sought to expedite the case for the minors’ welfare, though legally erroneous, indicated a misdirected zeal rather than fraudulent intent. A court employee has no authority to modify a judge’s order; any perceived defect should have been referred to the presiding judge or the successor judge.
However, her actions constituted Simple Misconduct, defined as a transgression of established rules of action. By unilaterally altering an official document, she failed to uphold the integrity of court records and violated the high standard of conduct required of judiciary personnel. Considering her admission, apology, lack of prior offenses, and the absence of actual damage from her act, the Court found the penalty of a six-month suspension too severe. Applying the principle that penalties should be commensurate with the offense and the attendant circumstances, the Court modified the penalty to a FINE of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), with a stern warning that a repetition will be dealt with more severely.