Facts: Atty. Kho is a former clerk of court of the RTC in Eastern Samar. He was found guilty of gross misconduct for his failure to make a timely remittance of judiciary funds in his custody. She was fined P10k. Since his malfeasance prima facie contravened Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Supreme Court ordered him to show cause why he should not be disciplined as a lawyer and as an officer of the court. In his explanation, Atty. Kho admitted that his failure to make a timely remittance of the cash deposited with him was inexcusable. He maintained, however, that he kept the money in the court’s safety vault and never once used it for his own benefit. 

Issue: 

Whether Atty. Kho is guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01.

Held: 

Atty. Kho’s apparent good faith and his ready admission of the infraction, although certainly mitigating, cannot negate the fact that his failure to remit P65,000 in judiciary funds for over a year was contrary to the mandatory provisions of OCA Circular 8A-93. That omission is a breach of his oath to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities and of his duties under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 

 Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes 

 Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. 

 As servants of the law and officers of the court, lawyers are required to be at the forefront of observing and maintaining the rule of law. They are expected to make themselves exemplars worthy of emulation. 

 The least a lawyer can do in compliance with Canon 1 is to refrain from engaging in unlawful conduct. By definition, any act or omission contrary to law is unlawful. It does not necessarily imply the element of criminality although it is broad enough to include it. Thus, 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. 

 Atty. Kho’s conduct was not only far from exemplary, it was unlawful as well. For this, he must be called to account. Atty. Kho is ordered to pay FINE of P5,000.00. (Re: Financial Audit Of Atty. Raquel G. Kho, A.M. No. P-06-2177, April 19, 2007)