In Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted on the Books of Accounts of Atty. Raquel G. Kho, the Supreme Court addressed the administrative liability of a clerk of court for the delayed remittance of judiciary funds. The Court emphasized that those in public office, particularly those involved in the administration of justice, are held to a high standard of responsibility and must be beyond suspicion. Failure to promptly remit funds constitutes gross misconduct, undermining public trust in the Judiciary.
When Delay Turns to Dishonor: The Case of Atty. Kho’s Delayed Remittances
This case originated from a financial audit conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on the books of accounts of Atty. Raquel G. Kho, who was then the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Oras, Eastern Samar. The audit revealed shortages in remittances to the General Fund and the Sheriff’s General Fund, as well as delays in depositing collections for the Fiduciary Fund and the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund. While Atty. Kho restituted the initial cash shortages, the delayed remittances for the judiciary funds raised serious concerns regarding her compliance with established procedures and her responsibility in handling public funds.
The OCA found Atty. Kho liable for violating OCA Circular No. 8A-93, which requires clerks of lower courts to deposit all collections from bail bonds, rental deposits, and other fiduciary collections with the Land Bank of the Philippines upon receipt. Atty. Kho explained that the nearest Land Bank branch was far from their locality, leading to his practice of keeping collections in the court’s safety vault. However, the Court emphasized that such reasons do not override the mandatory nature of circulars designed to promote full accountability for government funds.
The Supreme Court, in its resolution, affirmed the OCA’s findings and underscored the importance of public trust in the judiciary. The Court stated that:
Public office is a public trust. Those charged with the dispensation of justice, from the justices and judges to the lowliest clerks, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Not only must their conduct at all times be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, it must be beyond suspicion.
Building on this principle, the Court emphasized the role of a clerk of court in safeguarding funds and collections as essential to an orderly administration of justice. The Court reiterated that clerks of court should immediately deposit various funds received by them to the authorized government depositories, and they are not supposed to keep funds in their custody. Atty. Kho’s failure to make a timely turnover of cash deposited with him was deemed inexcusable.
The Court noted that Atty. Kho could have utilized postal money orders for the remittance, and the money could have earned interest had it not been kept in the vault for over a year. Even though Atty. Kho had restituted all his cash accountabilities, the Court found her liable for failing to immediately deposit the collections for the judiciary funds. The failure to remit the funds in due time constitutes gross dishonesty and gross misconduct, diminishing the faith of the people in the Judiciary. The Court cited the Constitution, Article XI, Sec. 1, which states that “Public office is a public trust.”
While dishonesty typically carries the extreme penalty of dismissal, the Court considered Atty. Kho’s remorse, immediate restitution, compliance with directives, and the fact that this was her first offense. Consequently, the Court deemed a fine of P10,000 to be a sufficient penalty. Furthermore, despite Atty. Kho’s transfer to the Department of Justice, the Court clarified that this did not render the matter moot or absolve her of liability.
The Court further emphasized that Atty. Kho’s misconduct reflected on her fitness as a member of the bar, potentially contravening Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Canon 1 states that “A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes,” and Rule 1.01 states that “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Therefore, the Court directed her to explain why no further disciplinary action should be imposed on her.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether Atty. Raquel G. Kho, as clerk of court, was administratively liable for the delayed remittance of judiciary funds in her custody. |
| What is the significance of OCA Circular No. 8A-93? | OCA Circular No. 8A-93 requires clerks of lower courts to deposit their collections in the Land Bank of the Philippines. It’s designed to ensure accountability and prevent the misuse of public funds. |
| What penalty did the Supreme Court impose on Atty. Kho? | The Supreme Court found Atty. Kho guilty of gross misconduct and ordered her to pay a fine of P10,000. |
| Why did the Court find Atty. Kho liable despite her restitution of the funds? | The Court found Atty. Kho liable because the delayed remittance itself constituted gross misconduct, regardless of the subsequent restitution. The timely remittance is crucial for maintaining public trust and ensuring proper handling of judiciary funds. |
| How did the Court address Atty. Kho’s membership in the bar? | The Court ordered Atty. Kho to show cause why she should not be disciplined as a lawyer and officer of the court, as her misconduct potentially violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. |
| Does transferring to another government department absolve one of liability? | No, the Court clarified that Atty. Kho’s transfer to the Department of Justice did not render the administrative matter moot or absolve her of liability. |
| What ethical principles are highlighted in this case? | The case emphasizes the ethical principles of public trust, accountability, and adherence to established rules and regulations, especially for those in positions of responsibility within the judiciary. |
| What is the practical implication for other clerks of court? | This case serves as a reminder for all clerks of court to strictly adhere to the rules on the timely remittance of judiciary funds to avoid administrative liability and uphold public trust. |
This case underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining the highest standards of integrity and accountability among its officers. The decision serves as a reminder that public office is a public trust, and those who violate this trust will be held accountable for their actions. The prompt and proper handling of public funds is essential to the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public confidence in the judicial system.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RE: REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ATTY. RAQUEL G. KHO, G.R No. 43461, June 27, 2006