PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS (AY 2018-2019, SECOND SEMESTER)
Discussion Sheet
Note: Compilation of Discussion Sheets will be passed as a course requirement at the end of the semester.
NAME OF STUDENT GEANELLE R. ESPERON
REPORTER / REPORT
Reporter #5
NUMBER
DATE OF REPORTING Feb. 13, 2019
RE: REPORT ON THE A.M. No. P-06-2177
FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED (Formerly A.M. No. 06-4-268-RTC)
ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS
TITLE OF CASE OF ATTY. RAQUEL G. KHO,
CLERK OF COURT IV,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
ORAS, EASTERN SAMAR
FACTS An audit was conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on
the books of accounts of Atty. Raquel G. Kho, former clerk of court of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 5, Oras, Eastern Samar. The audit covered the period March
1985 to October 31, 2005.
The OCA, in its memorandum dated April 18, 2006, had the following findings: (1)
there was a shortage of P545.00 in remittances to the General Fund; (2) a cash
shortage of P24.00 in the Sheriffs General Fund; and (3) Atty. Kho did not deposit
on time in the authorized depository bank the collections for the Fiduciary Fund
(P60,000) and Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (P5,000). It also noted that
Atty. Kho had already restituted the P545.00 and P24.00 cash shortages.
Regarding the delayed remittance of the amount of P60,000 representing the
amount of a confiscated cash bond, Kho explained that the Land Bank of the
Philippines (the authorized depository bank) had no branch in their locality. The
nearest Land Bank branch was approximately 95 kilometers away so it was his
practice to keep his collections in the courts safety vault.
On the other hand, the amount of P5,000 was collected as filing fee for an election
protest. According to Kho, this was collected under Rule 40 of the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC) Rules of Procedure. In defense, he presented a letter
addressed to Senior Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepao inquiring
where to remit said amount. The OCA, through Deputy Court Administrator Jose
P. Perez, responded that pending official instructions on how to manage the money
collected under Rule 40 of the COMELEC Rules, it was to be treated as trust
deposits and temporarily deposited in the Fiduciary Fund. However, Kho failed to
do this.
Consequently, the audit team advised him to deposit the P5,000 in the Special
Allowance for the Judiciary Fund as provided under Sec. 21 (g) of the amended
Administrative Circular No. 35-2004. He was also advised to deposit the
confiscated P60,000 cash bond in the Judicial Development Fund account. He
complied with both directives on November 15, 2005.
However, the OCA still received a letter-complaint with the information that Kho,
along with his alleged common-law-wife, stenographer Riza Amor L. Libanan, was
engaged in lending out to court employees money in his possession as clerk of
court, personally deriving profit from the interest earned.
ISSUE / VIOLATION Whether or not Atty. Kho violated CANON 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
PLOT TWIST Even if he has complied with the directives, the complaint still ensued.
RULING RTC:Yes.
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. However, Kho showed remorse by immediately restituting the cash shortages and
complying with the directives of the audit team. And considering that this is his first offense, we
find that the penalty of P10,000 fine is sufficient.
SC: He is ordered to pay a FINE of P56, 000 within ten days from receipt of this
resolution.
GUIDING PRINCIPLE You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.
REMARKS
NOTES IN GROUP
DISCUSSION
