GR L 74211; (March, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-74211 and L-76299, March 25, 1988
P.E. DOMINGO & CO., INC., ET AL. vs. HON. REMIGIO E. ZARI and GSIS; and GSIS, ET AL. vs. P.E. DOMINGO & CO., INC., ET AL.
FACTS
These consolidated petitions originated from loan obligations secured by real estate mortgages between P.E. Domingo & Co., Inc., along with individual petitioners (collectively, Domingo), and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Upon Domingo’s alleged default, GSIS foreclosed the mortgages and purchased the properties at public auction. Contesting the validity of the foreclosure sales, Domingo filed separate complaints for annulment in the Regional Trial Courts of Manila, Quezon City, and Pasig.
In these civil cases, Domingo filed motions for trial with assessors pursuant to Rule 32, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. The trial judge in Pasig granted the motion. However, the motions were denied by Judge Maximo Savellano, Jr. in Manila and Judge Remigio E. Zari in Quezon City. These denials prompted the petitions, with Domingo assailing the orders denying their right and GSIS contesting the order granting it, raising the issue of whether the right was seasonably invoked.
ISSUE
The principal issue is whether a party has an absolute right to a trial with assessors under Rule 32, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, provided the motion is filed seasonably and the case involves questions of fact.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Domingo, holding that the right to trial with assessors is absolute and mandatory when properly invoked. The Court clarified the legal logic underpinning this right. Rule 32, Section 2 uses mandatory language, stating that “upon the filing of such application, the judge shall direct that assessors shall be provided.” This phrasing leaves no discretion to the trial judge to deny a proper application. The right is substantive, and its necessity is left solely to the discretion of the parties, not the court.
The Court rejected GSIS’s argument that the motions were unjustified, stating that merely invoking the rule is sufficient. It also addressed the corollary issue of timeliness. The rule requires the application to be filed “twenty (20) days or more before the trial.” The Court found Domingo’s motions, filed before any trial had commenced, were seasonable. The 20-day period is designed to allow for the selection process of assessors, a purpose not thwarted here as trial had not begun. Furthermore, the Court determined the cases involved factual issues, such as the validity of the foreclosure and the liquidation of the debt, making trial with assessors appropriate. Consequently, the petitions were resolved to enforce the right: the denial orders were reversed, and trial with assessors was directed in the respective cases.