Domingo v. Government Service Insurance System
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: P.E. Domingo & Co., Inc. and several other individuals (Domingo) obtained loans from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), secured by real estate mortgages and other collaterals. Upon alleged default, the GSIS foreclosed the mortgages and sold the properties at public auction. Domingo protested the foreclosure sale and filed complaints in the regional trial courts of Manila, Quezon City, and Pasig, seeking the annulment of the foreclosure sales. In all three cases, Domingo moved for trial with assessors. Procedural History: The motion for trial with assessors was granted by the trial judge in Pasig but denied by Judge Maximo Savellano in Manila and Judge Remigio E. Zari in Quezon City. The denial by Judges Savellano and Zari led to separate petitions for certiorari. The Petition: G.R. No. 76299 is an appeal by certiorari from a Court of Appeals decision sustaining the right to trial with assessors, while G.R. No. 74211 is a petition for certiorari questioning the trial court's denial of such right. Both cases raise the issue of whether the right to trial with assessors was seasonably invoked.
Issue(s)
Whether the right to trial with assessors under Rule 32, Section 2 of the Rules of Court is a matter of right or discretion. Whether the motions for trial with assessors were seasonably filed. Whether the cases at bar involve questions of fact that would warrant the assistance of assessors.
Ruling
The Court granted the petition in G.R. No. 74211 and denied the petition in G.R. No. 76299. Trial by assessors was directed in Civil Case No. 84-24604 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila and Civil Case No. Q-41671 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The temporary restraining order in G.R. No. 74211 was lifted.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the right to trial with assessors is a matter of right or discretion: The Court held that Rule 32, Section 2 of the Rules of Court clearly shows that trial with assessors may be demanded as a matter of right by any party, as long as the conditions for the enjoyment of the right have been satisfied. The mandatory language of the rule, stating that "upon filing of such application, the judge shall direct that assessors shall be provided," leaves no discretion to the judge to deny the request. This right is considered absolute and mandatory, as previously held in cases like Colegio de San Jose v. Sison and Pagkatipunan v. Bautista. The necessity or advisability of having assessors is left to the discretion of the parties, but once invoked in the prescribed form, the judge must grant it. On whether the motions for trial with assessors were seasonably filed: The Court found that in G.R. No. 76299, the motion for trial with assessors was filed on October 14, 1985, after the pre-trial was terminated on October 3, 1985, and the case was initially set for trial on December 3, 1985. This was almost two months before the initial hearing, satisfying the requirement of at least twenty (20) days before the trial. In G.R. No. 74211, Domingo indicated its intention to have a trial with assessors as early as its pre-trial brief filed on March 21, 1985, and formalized this in a motion filed on September 16, 1985, with the first hearing set for September 20, 1985. Although the formal motion was filed only four days before the initial hearing, the Court considered the earlier indication in the pre-trial brief and the fact that no hearing was held within 20 days after the motion, nor up to the present, as sufficient to deem the motion seasonably filed. The 20-day period is intended to allow for agreement on assessors or their selection, and its purposes were not violated as there was sufficient time for appointment. On whether the cases involve questions of fact: The Court clarified that while assessors primarily assist in the determination of questions of fact, they have nothing to do with the interpretation of legal questions. The GSIS's assertion that the only questions to be settled were legal was deemed incorrect. The Court noted that there were several factual issues to be examined and resolved, including whether the debts of Domingo were due at the time of foreclosure and whether they were fully liquidated by the proceeds of the auction sales. These factual issues are precisely the kind of questions where assessors can provide valuable assistance to the judge.
Main Doctrine
The right to trial with assessors, as provided in Rule 32, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, is a substantive right that may be demanded as a matter of right by any party, provided the conditions for its enjoyment have been satisfied and it is seasonably invoked. A judge has no discretion to deny such a request when properly made, as the language of the rule is mandatory.