Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/299866871/Patanao-vs-Enage
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 17:25:35+00:00

Document:
HON. REMIGIO E. ZARI and THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), respondents.
AMADOR R. DOMINGO, ET AL., respondents.
interpretation of Rule 32, Section 2, of the Rules of Court, on trial with assessors.
such right. Both cases raise the corrollary question of whether or not the right had been seasonably invoked.
subject now of these petitions.
twenty (20) days or more before the trial, apply in writing to the judge for assessors to sit in the trial.
by law, in which case the vacancy shall be filled by lot, as above provided.
this right is "absolute and mandatory. Domingo had already indicated that 'they will . Bautista. The reason is the mandatory language of the rule which unequivocally says that "upon filing of such application. As the respondent court found. could or should appoint; the Legislature. No. the motion for the appointment of assessors was seasonably filed. 8 The rule says that the motion for trial with assessors should be filed twenty (20) days or more before the trial. Manaois v. . however. 1985. the right thus granted to the parties to be judged by assessors is absolute.. provides that 'upon filing of such application. Chief Justice Moran had the following to say on trial with assessors: Trial with the aid of assessors is a specie of jury trial. we make the following finding on the seasonableness of the motion. Munoz 10 where the motion was filed when the trial was already in progress. the judge shall direct that the assessors shall be provided. 7 It is argued by the GSIS that Domingo has not justified its motion for trial with assessors and gives no reason why it should be granted. That is the clear mandate of the law. The petitioners' Motion for Trial with Assessors was dated and filed October 14. whether or not they have been fully liquidated with the application thereto of the proceeds of the auction sales. By the terms of section 2. they have nothing to do with the interpretation of legal questions. Either or both may exercise the right to have assessors appointed. It would be difficult to draw a law in which the terms could be made more mandatory.. meant exactly what it said that — the judge upon proper application shall appoint. thus: Applied to the instant case.' signifying that it may be denied if filed after such period. 11 This factual finding is conclusive upon the Court. This was the reason for the denial of the motion in the cases cited by the GSIS. to wit." Trial with assessors is available where questions of fact are involved as assessors can help the judge in the determination of this kind of questions. it is the duty of the justice of the peace to grant it. has the judge any discretion to deny it? Section 2. if so.. the pre­trial of this case was terminated last October 3. considering the consolidation of the two cases and in order to terminate them without further delay. .. The case was initially set for trial on the merits on December 3. who has no discretion on the matter. Thus. 74211 because this has not been remanded to the Court of Appeals.R. Once the petition in writing has been filed by any of the parties. 1985. Accordingly. The legislature said that the court shall direct etc.. No similar inquiry has been made in G. After all.. While a like remand would nominally be the appropriate step to take. Among these are whether or not the debts of Domingo were already due at the time of the mortgage foreclosure and. But when the demand is made for the appointment of assessors in the form prescribed by law.be denied or withheld by the judge. when a demand therefor is made by the parties. considering the purpose of the law. the Court has held in no uncertain terms: . . The parties may therefore waive their rights to assessors and if they do not demand the appointment.. The necessity or advisability of having assessors is left to the discretion of the parties. for as we stressed in Pagkatipunan v. This substantive right has only to be invoked to be granted. almost two (2) months before the initial hearing date. this period was not exceeded in G. 76299. the records are before us. de la Cruz 9 where the motion was filed one day before the trial. assessors are only appointed when one or both of the parties shall apply therefor in writing to the judge. as taken from section 154 of Act 190. absent any clear showing that it was rendered with abuse of discretion or without any substantial basis. The Rules of Court require that the written application for assessors be made at least twenty (20) days before the trial. 6 Speaking of the same matter. . Concededly. it did not intend that the judge might. and to proceed to the selection of the assessors in the manner prescribed.1985. the judge shall direct that the assessors be provided . In his monumental work on the Rules of Court. That is enough; nothing else is needed. It appears that as early as in its pre­trial brief 12 filed on March 21. No. confining itself to merely invoking the rule. . and the duty imposed upon the justice of the peace is likewise mandatory. of course.. they. we feel that the Court should instead investigate the question directly. The GSIS is not exactly correct when it says that the only questions to be settled in the case at bar are legal in nature for there are a number of factual issues that have to be examined and resolved.The respondents could not be deprived of a substantial right granted them by law. and Suntay v.R. waive their rights thereto. .. 1985.
. Trial by assessors is hereby directed in Civil Case No. Concepcion. No. As long as it is provided for in the Rules of Court. Gancayco and Griño­Aquino. concur. denied. Q­41671 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. No pronouncement as to costs. p. JJ.R.R. 7 Colegio de San Jose v. P. as guaranteed by law. No.R. The Court does not agree. 40 Phil.R.1971. quoting Berbari v. that denial of the right to preliminary investigation. such a motion was submitted on September 16. the Court reaffirms its consistent holding that the right to trial with assessors cannot be withheld as long as it has been invoked in time and it is shown that there are questions of fact to be resolved.R. 1985. This intention was later formalized in a motion for trial with assessors filed by Domingo on September 16. 76299 is DENIED and the petition in G. Although not made in the form of a formal motion. 3 Id. 2 Ibid. Bautista. 344. 1985. No. No. 1963 ed. 13 It is no different here. 74211. Comments on the Rules of Court 153­154. and it cannot be said to have been filed tardily for in fact no hearing was held within 20 days after the date or. 1986. The purposes of the period are not violated here for there is sufficient time for the appointment of the assessors in accordance with the Id rule. under the Rule. 74211 is GRANTED. the right to trial with assessors cannot be withheld except only for the most compelling justification. 1985. 5 Rollo. No. 121 (G. Sison. There is obviously no intention to delay. 76299). 84­24604 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila and Civil Case No. the petition in G. The temporary restraining order dated June 4. 1104 (G.. 1985. The delay noted in the last two cases cited earlier is not present here for the trial in the case at bar has not yet begun. to begin with. be it the Constitution or only a statute or — in this case — the Rules of Court. 76299 and as we have found in G. the motions for trial with assessors were filed on time. June 15. 4 Rollo. . 10 CA­G. Teehankee.R. At any rate.. p. as found by the Court of Appeals in G. SP­00201.J. 6 2 Moran. as it was. 28. for that matter. or only four days ahead; hence.R. the application for trial with assessors was made as early as March 21. Moreover. SO ORDERED. is protected by the due process clause and so cannot be denied the person entitled thereto without good reason.. pp.R. 1 1 0. 11 Rollo. No. No. No. Narvasa. The 20­day period fixed by the Rule is intended to enable the parties to agree on the choice of the arbitrators or for the selection to be made in the manner prescribed therein where the parties cannot agree. C. No. During that period. in the pretrial brief filed by Domingo. 108 SCRA 569. 74211 is LIFTED. No. We have held for example. The GSIS contends that the motion was filed late because the date set for the first hearing was September 20. in G. the motion should be. 56 Phil. It seems to us that if the spirit of the Rule is to be consulted. the motion should be granted. as there evidently are certain factual issues that in the view of one of the parties are better resolved with the help of assessors. constitutes a denial of due process. p. it arguably could have sufficed as there is nothing in the rule that calls for such formal motion. 76299).. We also hold that. 27 (G. 8 Rollo. 27­28. 76299) 9 19 SCRA 395. p. 74211). whatever its source.R. Footnotes 1 Rollo.. Any right. up to now.want a trial with assessors under Rule 32' of the Rules of Court. pp.R. 11 7­118 (G. ACCORDINGLY. the assessors picked are to be so informed and summoned to appear at the trial to assist the judge in the ascertainment of the factual issues unless for good cause they are excused from doing so. In sum. 320. quoted in Pagkatipunan v.
The Lawphil Project ­ Arellano Law Foundation . 13 Patanao v. p. 121 SCRA 228. Enage. 90.12 Rollo.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.