Title
Primicias vs. Ocampo
Case
G.R. No. L-6120
Decision Date
Jun 30, 1953
Cipriano Primicias sought assessors for his trial under Manila's Revised Charter, claiming it as a substantive right. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to assessors, being substantive, was not repealed by procedural rules and must be granted.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-6120)

Facts:

  • Procedural Posture
    • Petitioner Cipriano P. Primicias was charged before the Court of First Instance of Manila with two criminal offenses:
      • Violation of Commonwealth Act No. 606 for chartering a Philippine-registered vessel to an alien without Presidential approval (Crim. Case No. 18374).
      • Violation of Revised Administrative Code §§129, 2713 for failure to submit customs documents and clearances for the vessel “Antarctic” (Crim. Case No. 18375).
    • On April 23, 1952, petitioner moved for the appointment of assessors under §49 of R.A. No. 409 (Revised Charter of Manila), invoking §154 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure).
    • The City Fiscal opposed; on April 28, 1952, the trial court denied the motion, holding that the Supreme Court’s Rules of Court (effective July 1, 1940) had repealed assessor provisions.
  • Legislative and Constitutional Background
    • Early assessor provisions:
      • Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure, 1901) §§58–62, 154–161 (civil assessors).
      • Act No. 267 (Oct. 17, 1901) Amending Manila Charter (civil and criminal assessors).
    • Extensions of assessor trial:
      • Act No. 2369 (1914) in provincial Courts of First Instance (criminal assessors).
      • Act No. 2520 (1915) in Mindanao and Sulu courts.
    • Charter reenactments in Manila:
      • Administrative Code 1916 §2449 (from Act No. 183 as amended).
      • Revised Administrative Code §2477 (1917).
      • R.A. No. 409 §49 (1949) preserving assessor aid “in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure.”

Issues:

  • Whether the right to trial with assessors under R.A. No. 409 §49 is a substantive right, mandatory and not subject to repeal by the Rules of Court.
  • Whether the Supreme Court’s failure to include assessor provisions in the 1940 Rules of Court impliedly repealed those provisions.
  • Whether R.A. No. 409’s reference to the Code of Civil Procedure re-enacts assessor provisions despite the Rules of Court.
  • Whether §49 of R.A. No. 409 violates the constitutional uniformity clause for courts of the same grade or constitutes class legislation.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.