A.M. No. 99-11-158-MTC. August 1, 2000. RE: PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY JUDGE DANIEL LIANGCO, EXECUTIVE JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT (MTC) OF SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, RE RAFFLE OF CASES UNDER P.D. 1602.
FACTS:

This administrative case originated from a memorandum issued by RTC Executive Judge Pedro Sunga, directing MTC Executive Judge Daniel Liangco to explain the assignment of cases for violation of P.D. 1602 (anti-jueteng). An initial report showed 29 such cases in July 1999 all assigned to Judge Liangco’s own Branch 1. A subsequent review by Judge Sunga revealed that out of 55 total jueteng cases filed that month, 53 were assigned to Branch 1, indicating a statistical improbability.
In his explanation, Judge Liangco claimed the assignment was due to the accused being detained and filing urgent bail motions addressed to him as Executive Judge, necessitating immediate action without awaiting scheduled raffles. He argued this practice facilitated the release of detainees and was akin to a consolidation policy. However, the MTC Clerk of Court, Juanita Flores, contradicted this, stating the jueteng cases were never formally raffled. She testified that staff from Branch 1 would automatically retrieve these case records upon filing and retain them without subjecting them to the mandatory raffle procedure under Supreme Court Circular No. 7.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Daniel Liangco committed an infraction by automatically assigning cases for violation of P.D. 1602 to his own branch without conducting a raffle.

RULING

Yes, Judge Liangco violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Supreme Court found his practice of bypassing the raffle system for jueteng cases constituted a clear breach of duty. The legal logic centers on the imperative of maintaining public confidence in judicial integrity and impartiality. The mandatory raffle of cases is a fundamental safeguard designed precisely to prevent any suspicion of favoritism, manipulation, or undue interest by a judge in specific cases. By unilaterally assigning these cases to his sala, Judge Liangco created an appearance of impropriety, casting doubt on his objectivity and eroding public trust in the judiciary. The Court emphasized that judges must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial. While no direct proof of corruption was found, the act itself undermined procedural fairness. Consequently, the Court suspended Judge Liangco for six months without pay and ordered the Clerk of Court to re-raffle the improperly assigned jueteng cases.