AM P 06 2177; (June, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. P-06-2177 ; June 27, 2006
Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted on the Books of Accounts of Atty. Raquel G. Kho, Clerk of Court IV, Regional Trial Court, Oras, Eastern Samar
FACTS
This administrative case arose from a financial audit covering March 1985 to October 2005 on Atty. Raquel G. Kho, former Clerk of Court of the RTC, Branch 5, Oras, Eastern Samar. The audit revealed a shortage of P545.00 in remittances to the General Fund and P24.00 in the Sheriff’s General Fund, both of which Kho had already restituted. More significantly, the audit found that Kho failed to deposit on time a P60,000.00 confiscated cash bond (Fiduciary Fund) and a P5,000.00 collection from an election protest filing fee (Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund). Kho explained the delay for the P60,000 was due to the absence of a Land Bank branch in their locality, keeping it in the court’s safety vault instead. For the P5,000, he claimed uncertainty on proper remittance under COMELEC rules.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Raquel G. Kho is administratively liable for his failure to make timely deposits of judiciary funds in his custody.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Kho is guilty of gross misconduct. The Court emphasized that a clerk of court is a fiduciary charged with the crucial duty of safeguarding and immediately depositing court funds into authorized government depositories, as mandated by circulars like OCA Circular No. 8A-93. This duty is non-negotiable and essential to maintaining public trust in the judiciary. Kho’s justifications for the delays—distance to the bank and procedural uncertainty—were unacceptable. The Court noted he could have utilized postal money orders for remittance and that the OCA had provided clear guidance on handling the funds in question. His failure to remit the funds promptly for over a year constituted gross dishonesty and gross misconduct, as it deprived the funds of potential interest and eroded institutional integrity.
While the offense is grave and typically punishable by dismissal, the Court considered mitigating factors: Kho had restituted the cash shortages, complied with audit directives to deposit the delayed amounts, and this was his first offense. Consequently, a fine of P10,000.00 was deemed appropriate. The Court further ruled that his subsequent transfer to the Department of Justice did not moot the case. Moreover, his conduct implicated his fitness as a lawyer under the Code of Professional Responsibility, and he was ordered to show cause why no disciplinary sanction should be imposed on him as a member of the Bar.