Re: Kho
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This administrative case arose from a financial audit of the books of accounts of Atty. Raquel G. Kho, the former clerk of court for the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Oras, Eastern Samar, covering the period from March 1985 to October 31, 2005. The audit revealed several discrepancies, including a shortage of P545.00 in remittances to the General Fund and a P24.00 cash shortage in the Sheriff's General Fund. Additionally, Atty. Kho failed to deposit collections for the Fiduciary Fund (P60,000) and the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (P5,000) into the authorized depository bank in a timely manner. Procedural History: Following the audit, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued a memorandum detailing its findings. Atty. Kho subsequently restituted the cash shortages. He explained the delayed deposit of the P60,000 confiscated cash bond by citing the lack of a Land Bank branch in his locality, leading him to keep the funds in the court's safety vault. For the P5,000 collected as a filing fee for an election protest, Atty. Kho inquired about the proper remittance procedure and was advised by the OCA to treat it as a trust deposit in the Fiduciary Fund, a directive he failed to follow initially. He later complied with the OCA's advice to deposit the P60,000 into the Judicial Development Fund and the P5,000 into the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund on November 15, 2005. Subsequently, a letter-complaint alleged that Atty. Kho was lending court funds for personal profit. The Petition: The OCA found Atty. Kho liable for violating OCA Circular No. 8A-93 for failing to deposit collections promptly. The OCA recommended that the audit report be docketed as a formal administrative complaint and that Atty. Kho be fined P10,000. The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA's findings, holding Atty. Kho guilty of gross misconduct for the failure to make timely remittances of judiciary funds. While acknowledging his restitution and remorse, and considering it his first offense, the Court imposed a P10,000 fine and ordered Atty. Kho to show cause why he should not be disciplined as a lawyer for his misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Raquel G. Kho is guilty of gross misconduct for his failure to make timely remittance of judiciary funds in his custody. Whether Atty. Kho should be disciplined as a lawyer and an officer of the Court for his misconduct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Raquel G. Kho guilty of gross misconduct for his failure to make timely remittance of judiciary funds in his custody. He was ordered to pay a fine of P10,000 within ten (10) days from receipt of the resolution. Atty. Kho was also ordered to show cause within the same period why he should not be disciplined as a lawyer and an officer of the Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross misconduct: The Court affirmed the OCA's finding that Atty. Kho committed gross misconduct for failing to make a timely turn-over of cash deposited with him. This failure was deemed inexcusable, as he could have utilized postal money orders for remittance. The Court emphasized that clerks of court are mandated to immediately deposit all collections with authorized government depositories, as safekeeping of funds is essential to the orderly administration of justice. No protestation of good faith can override the mandatory nature of circulars promoting accountability for government funds. The failure to remit funds in due time diminishes the faith of the people in the Judiciary and constitutes gross dishonesty and gross misconduct. Although Kho had restituted all cash accountabilities and showed remorse, his failure to immediately deposit collections for judiciary funds rendered him liable. On the issue of disciplinary sanction as a lawyer and officer of the Court: The Court noted that Kho had transferred to the Department of Justice, but this did not render the matter moot or free him from liability. His misconduct reflected on his fitness as a member of the bar, contravening Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Consequently, he was ordered to show cause why no further disciplinary sanction should be imposed upon him.
Main Doctrine
A clerk of court's failure to make timely remittance of judiciary funds in his custody constitutes gross misconduct, diminishing public faith in the Judiciary. While restitution and remorse may be considered, the mandatory nature of circulars designed to promote accountability for government funds cannot be overridden.