Colegio de San Jose v. Sison
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The Colegio de San Jose, a corporation sole, initiated multiple civil cases (Nos. 81-101 and 80 others) in the justice of the peace court of Liang, Batangas, against various tenants to recover unpaid rents for the year 1930. The core of the dispute revolved around the tenants' right to have these cases tried with the intervention of assessors, a right they claimed under Section 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Procedural History: When the justice of the peace denied the tenants' request for assessors, citing the lack of a provided list and proper selection process, the tenants filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Batangas. While this mandamus proceeding was pending, the justice of the peace, at the plaintiff's instance and in the absence of the defendants and their counsel, proceeded with the hearings of 21 cases. Subsequently, the Court of First Instance ordered a new trial for these cases, compelling the justice of the peace to appoint assessors. The Colegio de San Jose appealed this judgment, but the Court of First Instance, under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, ordered the execution of the judgment notwithstanding the appeal. The Colegio de San Jose then filed a motion for a new trial in the mandamus case, which was denied, and subsequently filed a bill of exceptions. The justice of the peace then set the cases for a new trial, which was suspended by the preliminary injunction issued in the present prohibition proceedings. 3. The Petition: The Colegio de San Jose filed this petition for prohibition, seeking to prevent the justice of the peace and auxiliary justice of the peace of Liang from continuing the hearing of civil cases Nos. 81 to 101. The petitioner argued that the justice of the peace was not obligated to appoint assessors due to the absence of a list provided by the municipal council. The Supreme Court, however, addressed two main questions: the right to trial by assessors and the power of the Court of First Instance to order execution pending appeal. The Court denied the petition, affirming the lower court's actions and quashing the preliminary injunction.
Issue(s)
Whether the justice of the peace erred in denying the motion for assessors. Whether the Court of First Instance had the power to order the execution of the judgment in the mandamus proceeding notwithstanding the appeal taken by the petitioner.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the preliminary injunction is quashed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of assessors: The Court held that the right of parties to have their cases tried with the intervention of assessors in justice of the peace courts, as provided in section 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is absolute and the duty of the justice of the peace to grant such a petition is mandatory. The absence of a list of assessors from the municipal council does not exempt the justice of the peace from this duty; it was his obligation to require the municipal council to supply the list. The intervention of assessors is not a mere formality but a substantial right that cannot be disregarded without vitiating the proceedings. Therefore, the justice of the peace erred in denying the motion for assessors, rendering the initial proceedings null and void. On the execution of the mandamus judgment: The Court ruled that the respondent judges of first instance did not exceed their powers but acted within the discretion granted by section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure in ordering the execution of the judgment in the mandamus case notwithstanding the appeal. This action was justified because the Court of First Instance correctly determined that the original trials were null and void due to the deprivation of the defendants' substantial right to have assessors. Consequently, the Court of First Instance did right in requiring the justice of the peace to proceed with the appointment of assessors and the holding of new trials to rectify the nullity of the previous proceedings.
Main Doctrine
The right of parties to have their cases tried with the intervention of assessors in justice of the peace courts is an absolute and substantial right, and the justice of the peace has a mandatory duty to grant such a petition and provide for the selection of assessors, even if the municipal council has not supplied a list of assessors. Failure to do so renders the proceedings null and void. Furthermore, a Court of First Instance may, under certain circumstances, order the execution of a judgment in a mandamus proceeding notwithstanding an appeal, particularly when such execution is necessary to enforce a substantial right that has been violated.