Re: Kho
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Raquel G. Kho, former clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Oras, Eastern Samar, failed to make a timely remittance of judiciary funds in his custody, amounting to ₱65,000, for over a year. Procedural History: In a resolution dated June 27, 2006, Atty. Kho was found guilty of gross misconduct for his failure to make a timely remittance and was ordered to pay a fine of ₱10,000. Subsequently, the Court ordered him to show cause why he should not be disciplined as a lawyer and an officer of the court. The Petition: Atty. Kho submitted an explanation admitting his failure to remit the funds was inexcusable but maintained he kept the money in the court's safety vault and did not use it for his personal benefit.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Kho's failure to make a timely remittance of judiciary funds constitutes unlawful conduct. Whether Atty. Kho's explanation and mitigating circumstances warrant a reduction in the penalty.
Ruling
The Court found Atty. Raquel G. Kho guilty of unlawful conduct in violation of the Attorney's Oath, Section 20(a), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was ordered to pay a fine of ₱5,000.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Atty. Kho's failure to make a timely remittance of judiciary funds constitutes unlawful conduct: The Court held that Atty. Kho's failure to remit ₱65,000 in judiciary funds for over a year was contrary to the mandatory provisions of OCA Circular 8A-93. This omission was a breach of his oath to obey the laws and legal orders of duly constituted authorities, and his duties under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court emphasized that lawyers, as servants of the law and officers of the court, are expected to be at the forefront of observing and maintaining the rule of law and should be exemplars worthy of emulation. Any act or omission contrary to law is considered unlawful, and the presence of evil intent is not essential to bring such conduct within the terms of Rule 1.01. Therefore, Atty. Kho's conduct was not only far from exemplary but also unlawful. On whether Atty. Kho's explanation and mitigating circumstances warrant a reduction in the penalty: While Atty. Kho's apparent good faith and ready admission of the infraction were considered mitigating, they could not negate the fact that his omission was contrary to mandatory provisions. However, the Court acknowledged his candid and repentant admission of error, his lack of intent to gain, and the fact that this was his first offense. These circumstances were deemed sufficient to temper his culpability considerably. Consequently, a fine of ₱5,000 was deemed sufficient, a reduction from the initial ₱10,000 fine imposed for gross misconduct.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer's failure to remit judiciary funds in his custody, even with apparent good faith and admission of infraction, constitutes unlawful conduct in violation of the Attorney's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting disciplinary action.