Re: Report on Financial Audit of Kho
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Raquel G. Kho, Clerk of Court IV of the Regional Trial Court, Oras, Eastern Samar, failed to make a timely remittance of judiciary funds in his custody, specifically P65,000, for over a year, contrary to OCA Circular No. 8A-93. Procedural History: In a resolution dated June 27, 2006, the Supreme Court found Atty. Kho guilty of gross misconduct for his failure to remit the funds and imposed a fine of P10,000. Subsequently, the Court ordered Atty. Kho to show cause why he should not be disciplined as a lawyer and officer of the court, prompting him to submit an explanation. The Petition: This resolution addresses Atty. Kho's explanation regarding his failure to remit judiciary funds. The Court considers his explanation in determining the appropriate disciplinary action as a lawyer and officer of the court.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Raquel G. Kho should be disciplined as a lawyer and officer of the court for his failure to make a timely remittance of judiciary funds in his custody.
Ruling
Atty. Raquel G. Kho is found 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 is ordered to pay a FINE of P5,000 within ten days from receipt of this resolution. The Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, is directed to deduct the fines from Atty. Kho's accrued leave credits.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether Atty. Raquel G. Kho should be disciplined as a lawyer and officer of the court for his failure to make a timely remittance of judiciary funds in his custody: The Supreme Court held that Atty. Kho's failure to remit P65,000 in judiciary funds for over a year was inexcusable and contrary to the mandatory provisions of OCA Circular 8A-93. This omission constituted a breach of his oath to obey the laws and legal orders of authorities, as well as his duties under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits 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 exemplars of observing and maintaining the rule of law, and their responsibilities under Canon 1 extend beyond merely staying out of trouble with the law. While Atty. Kho admitted his infraction and claimed he kept the money in the court's safety vault without using it for personal benefit, his apparent good faith and admission, though mitigating, could not negate the fact that his conduct was unlawful. The Court noted that the presence of evil intent is not essential to bring an act or omission within the terms of Rule 1.01, as any act or omission contrary to law is unlawful. Considering his candid and repentant admission, lack of intent to gain, and it being his first offense, the Court tempered his culpability and imposed a fine of P5,000, which was deemed sufficient.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed that a lawyer, by virtue of their position as an officer of the court and a servant of the law, has a heightened duty to uphold the law and maintain respect for legal processes. The failure to remit judiciary funds, even if kept in safekeeping and not used for personal benefit, constitutes unlawful conduct. This omission violates the Attorney's Oath and specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly Rule 1.01, which prohibits dishonest or deceitful conduct. The Court emphasized that such an act is contrary to mandatory provisions of administrative circulars and breaches the lawyer's duty to obey laws and legal orders.