01 Ang Kek Chen v.

Abundio Bello, as Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, and the People of
Philippines
G.R. No. 76344-46, 30 June 1988
Yap, C.J. / jbsj

Subject Matter: Civil procedure; Calendar of cases; Raffling of cases

Case Summary: Ang was charged before the then Manila City Court with crimes of Maltreatment, Threats, and
Slight Physical Injuries. After the prosecution had presented its evidence, Ang filed a Demurrer to Evidence
which was denied by the trial court. Ang elevated the incident to the RTC of Manila on certiorari and prohibition.
The petition was likewise denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the Regional Trial Court’s
Order. Meanwhile, the then presiding judge of the trial court where the cases were pending was promoted to
the RTC. As a consequence, the judge, as officer-in-charge of the MTC, directed the return of the case records to
the Clerk of Court for "re-raffle." Ang, however, alleged that he received the corresponding order only after the
cases had already been actually "re-raffled" and assigned to the said judge. Ang filed a motion to re-raffle the
cases, which was denied. The subsequent motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. The Supreme Court
held that the raffle of cases is of vital importance to the administration of justice because it is intended to insure
impartial adjudication of cases. By raffling the cases public suspicion regarding assignment of cases to
predetermined judges is obviated.

Doctrines:
1. The raffle of cases is of vital importance to the administration of justice because it is intended to insure
impartial adjudication of cases. By raffling the cases, public suspicion regarding assignment of cases to
predetermined judges is obviated.

2. When the respondent judge conducted the raffle of the three criminal cases in question, he did not only arouse
the suspicion that he had some ulterior motive for doing so, but he violated the cardinal rule that all judicial
processes must be done above board. We consider the procedure of raffling cases to be an important element of
judicial proceedings, designed precisely to give assurance to the parties that the court hearing their case would
be impartial.

Action Before SC: Petition to review the order of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila

Parties:
Petitioner Ang Kek Chen

Respondents Abundio Bello, as Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, and the People of the
Philippines

Facts:
1. Ang was charged before the then Manila City Court with crimes of Maltreatment, Threats, and Slight Physical
Injuries.

2. After the prosecution had presented its evidence, Ang filed a Demurrer to Evidence which was denied by the
trial court. Ang elevated the incident to the RTC of Manila on certiorari and prohibition with prayer for
preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining orders. The petition was likewise denied. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the Regional Trial Court’s Order.
3. Meanwhile, the then presiding judge of the trial court where the cases were pending was promoted to the
RTC. As a consequence, the judge, as officer-in-charge of the MTC, directed the return of the case records to the
Clerk of Court for "re-raffle." Ang, however, alleged that he received the corresponding order only after the cases
had already been actually "re-raffled" and assigned to the said judge.

4. Ang filed a motion to re-raffle the cases, which was denied. The subsequent motion for reconsideration was
likewise denied. Hence, the present petition.

Issue: Did the judge commit grave abuse of discretion in the manner of raffle of cases? [YES]

Holding/Ratio:
1. The raffle of cases is of vital importance to the administration of justice because it is intended to insure
impartial adjudication of cases. By raffling the cases, public suspicion regarding assignment of cases to
predetermined judges is obviated.

2. A violation or disregard of the Court’s circular on how the raffle of cases should be conducted is not to be
countenanced. A party has the right to be heard by an impartial and unbiased tribunal.

3. When the respondent judge conducted the raffle of the three criminal cases in question, he did not only arouse
the suspicion that he had some ulterior motive for doing so, but he violated the cardinal rule that all judicial
processes must be done above board. We consider the procedure of raffling cases to be an important element of
judicial proceedings, designed precisely to give assurance to the parties that the court hearing their case would
be impartial.

Petition granted.