GR 24881; (October, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24881 October 30, 1981
MELENCIO PAGKATIPUNAN, DOMINGO CRUZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE ATILANO C. BAUTISTA, LEONOR DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
In an ejectment case filed in the Municipal Court of San Mateo, Rizal, the defendants filed a motion for trial with the aid of assessors pursuant to Rule 32 of the Rules of Court. The municipal judge denied the motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. The defendants then filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, seeking to restrain the municipal judge from proceeding with the trial without assessors and to review the denial order. The Court of First Instance granted the petition, declared the municipal judge’s orders null and void, and directed him to appoint assessors in accordance with Sections 57 to 62 of Act No. 190 (the Code of Civil Procedure), enjoining further trial without such assistance. The municipal judge and other respondents appealed this decision directly to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
The principal issue is whether the right to a trial with the aid of assessors is applicable in cases filed with and tried before a municipal court.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, ruling that the right to a trial with assessors is indeed applicable in municipal courts. The Court anchored its ruling on the substantive nature of the right granted under Sections 57 to 62 of Act No. 190. It emphasized that this right is absolute and mandatory once properly requested by a party, and it is a substantive right beyond the rule-making power of the Supreme Court to repeal or modify. The Court cited its precedent in Colegio de San Jose vs. Sison, which explicitly applied this right to a justice of the peace court (the predecessor of the municipal court), holding that the intervention of assessors is not a mere formality but a substantial security for litigants.
The appellants argued that Rule 32, which speaks of the right to have assessors, applies only to the Court of First Instance, as it is not among the rules expressly made applicable to inferior courts by Section 19, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme Court rejected this, adopting the commentary that the enumeration in Section 19, Rule 5 is not exclusive. The Court further held that the alleged lack of a prepared list of assessors or an appropriation for their compensation cannot impede the granting of the request, as such logistical issues cannot negate a substantive right. Consequently, proceedings taken by an inferior court after the wrongful denial of a request for assessors are null and void. The decision directing the municipal judge to proceed with the aid of assessors was therefore upheld.