A.M. No. 99-11-158-MTC - IN RE: Liangco

On August 17, 1999, Executive Judge Pedro M. Sunga of RTC, Branch 42, San Fernando, Pampanga, issued a memorandum directing Judge Daniel B. Liangco, Executive Judge of the MTC of San Fernando, Pampanga, to provide details on the assignment of cases for violation of P.D. 1602 (Jueteng).
The memorandum arose after Clerk of Court Juanita Flores had been regularly submitting monthly reports that showed irregularities in the distribution of jueteng cases among the branches of the MTC.
Judge Liangco, in compliance, submitted a letter on August 20, 1999 indicating that the 29 cases reported for July 1999 had been assigned to Branch 1 of his court.

Upon reviewing the monthly report attachment, Judge Sunga discovered that there were actually 55 jueteng cases filed in July 1999, with 53 being assigned to Branch 1—an outcome that appeared statistically improbable.
On August 24, 1999, Judge Sunga sent a memorandum asking for a written explanation regarding the method of raffling the cases in the MTC.
In response, on August 25, 1999, Judge Liangco explained that:

The direct assignment of cases to Branch 1 was due to the urgent need for the accused to secure provisional liberty by filing bail, which necessitated immediate action rather than waiting for the scheduled raffling dates.
His practice was aligned with a previous memorandum dated September 1, 1998, intended to group cases with common evidence or parties to avoid unnecessary consolidation motions.

Clerk of Court Juanita Flores provided an explanation stating that jueteng cases were not raffled in the usual manner; instead, a staff member from Branch 1 would automatically retain the records to process cashbonds for detained accused, bypassing the formal raffle requirement.
Judge Rodrigo R. Flores of Branch 2 and the judges from Branches 3 and 4 (Judge Perfecto S. Corpus, Jr. and Judge Domingo C. San Jose, Jr.) also submitted their written explanations detailing the procedures they followed in the raffling process, which invariably confirmed that only a minimal number of jueteng cases were allocated to branches other than Branch 1.
On September 3 and September 17, 1999, administrative communications were sent respectively to address the explanations provided and to inform the Chief Justice of the irregularities observed in the case assignments.

Following the submission of the various explanations, RTC Executive Judge Sunga referred the matter to Senior Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez for evaluation on September 23, 1999.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted an audit of all pending cases in the four branches of the MTC, San Fernando, Pampanga, revealing that a disproportionate number of P.D. 1602 cases were assigned to Branch 1.
In its evaluation report dated October 22, 1999, the OCA recommended:

That Judge Liangco explain why 54 cases of the said violation were directly assigned to his branch without a raffle.
The creation of a Judicial Audit Team to inspect cases in all branches.
Detailed submission of case lists by the Clerk of Court.
The imposition of administrative sanctions on Judge Liangco, including his suspension pending charges.

On November 9, 1999, the Court En Banc adopted the OCA’s recommendations, effectively directing that Judge Liangco’s practice be scrutinized under Supreme Court Circular No. 7 (September 23, 1974), which mandates that cases must be raffled before assignment.
Judge Liangco then submitted an explanation on November 19, 1999, claiming that his method aimed to facilitate speedy justice by avoiding delays from consolidation motions. He also noted that he later revoked his earlier memorandum (from September 1, 1998) via another memorandum dated September 1, 1999, to comply with the circular.
However, the inconsistency in his explanations, alongside the audit findings showing a highly irregular distribution of jueteng cases among the branches, led to the administrative investigation culminating in the final decision.
Ultimately, after a thorough investigation that included a review of administrative communications, orders, and the comprehensive list of cases indicating gross irregularities in case assignment, the court found that Judge Liangco had violated the established procedures.

Whether Judge Liangco’s procedure of directly assigning, without the benefit of a raffle, jueteng cases (violations of P.D. 1602) to Branch 1 of the MTC violated Supreme Court Circular No. 7.
Whether the direct assignment was justified on the grounds of expediting provisional liberty for the accused, or if it was an improper deviation from the mandated raffle system.
Whether the irregular and disproportionate allocation of jueteng cases solely to Branch 1 undermined the appearance of impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.
Whether the administrative sanction imposed on Judge Liangco (a six-month suspension) is commensurate with the gravity of the violation, given the lack of evidence that he profited from the said irregular procedure.