RE: FINANCIAL AUDIT OF ATTY. RAQUEL G.

KHO
FACTS:
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) instituted an administrative case against Atty Kho, a former clerk of
court of an RTC, after an audit by the former found that the latter failed to remit P60K (confiscated cash bonds) and
P5K(Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund). Atty Kho stated that these amounts were stored in the courts safety vaults,
as his usual practice. The audit team advised him that he should deposit such amounts to the Judicial Development Fund
account and Atty Kho complied with the directives.
Subsequently, the ICA received a complaint that Atty Kho, along with his common-law wife, a stenographer, was
engaged with lending out to court employees money in his possession as clerk of court, personally deriving profit from the
interest earned. The OCA found Atty Kho liable of violating an OCA Circular because he kept the funds in a safety vault for
more than a year. The OCA then recommended that its report be docketed as an A.C. and Kho be imposed a P10K fine.
ISSUE/S:
W/N Atty. Kho is liable.
HELD:
YES. OCA recommendations VALID.
RATIO:
Dishonesty Conduct
Kho failed to make a timely turn-over of cash deposited with him. The failure to remit the funds in due time
constitutes gross dishonesty and gross misconduct. It diminishes the faith of the people in the Judiciary. Dishonesty, being in
the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service even if committed for the first time.
His malfeasance prima facie contravenes Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
And although Kho had restituted all his cash accountabilities, he was nevertheless liable for failing to immediately
deposit the collections for the judiciary funds.
Unlawful conduct
Lawyers should always keep in mind that, although upholding the Constitution and obeying the law is an obligation
imposed on every citizen, a lawyers responsibilities under Canon 1 mean more than just staying out of trouble with the law.
The least a lawyer can do in compliance with Canon 1 is to refrain from engaging in unlawful conduct. The presence of evil
intent on the part of the lawyer is not essential in order to bring his act or omission within the terms of Rule 1.01 which
specifically prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful conduct.