G.R. No. 1647 - People vs Ocampo

Two cases were consolidated because both raised the same question regarding the interpretation of Rule 32, Section 2, of the Rules of Court on trial with assessors.
The petitioners in one case are P.E. Domingo & Co., Inc. with various members of the Domingo family, while the respondents include Hon. Remigio E. Zari and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).
In the other case, GSIS along with Hon. Maximo A. Savellano, Jr. (as Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Manila) are petitioners against the Domingo group as respondents.

The controversies arose from loans obtained by P.E. Domingo & Co. and other Domingo family members from the GSIS.
These loans were secured by real estate mortgages and other collaterals.
Upon alleged default, the foreclosures were executed and the mortgaged properties were sold at public auction by the GSIS.

Domingo protested the foreclosure sale and, prior to the GSIS consolidating title to the properties, filed complaints in the regional trial courts of Manila, Quezon City, and Pasig for annulment of the foreclosure sale.
In connection with these complaints, Domingo moved for a trial with assessors in all three courts.
While the Pasig trial judge granted the motion for trial with assessors, judges in Manila and Quezon City (Judge Savellano and Judge Zari, respectively) denied the motion.

The rule permits either party to apply in writing for trial with assessors at least twenty (20) days before the trial.
Upon filing, the court is compelled to direct the appointment of assessors, following a prescribed method of striking names off a list until two assessors remain.
The rule’s language is mandatory and leaves no discretion to the judge as long as its conditions are met.

Domingo indicated in its pre-trial brief, as early as March 21, 1985, its intention to have a trial with assessors under Rule 32.
This intention was later formalized by a motion for trial with assessors filed on September 16, 1985.
The schedule shows that the motion was made well in advance of the commencement of the trial, thereby satisfying the 20-day requirement.

Key factual issues include whether the related debts were due at the time of foreclosure.
It also involves determining if the auction proceeds were properly applied to liquidate the debt.
The factual questions underscore the importance of having assessors to assist the trial judge in resolving issues pertaining to facts.

Whether the right to a trial with assessors, as provided under Rule 32, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, is an absolute and mandatory right that must be granted upon proper application.
Whether the judge possesses any discretion to deny such a request when the statutory requirements have been complied with.

Whether the motion for trial with assessors was filed in a timely manner, in accordance with the rule’s requirement of being submitted at least twenty (20) days before the trial.
Whether the procedural history and pre-trial indications by Domingo satisfied the period allowed for proper selection and appointment of assessors.

Whether, in the absence of any compelling justification or abuse of discretion, the denial of the motion by the trial judges violated the fundamental due process rights of the parties.
How factual issues that require assessor assistance should be treated, even in cases that involve legal questions.