Primicias v. Ocampo, et. al., G.R. No.

L-6120, June 30, 1953

Facts

Cipriano P. Primicias, the petitioner, was charged with two statutory offenses in the
Court of First Instance of Manila. The first charge, docketed as Criminal Case No.
18374, involved a violation of Commonwealth Act No. 606 for chartering a vessel to an
alien without presidential approval. The second charge, docketed as Criminal Case No.
18375, involved a violation of Section 129 in relation to Section 2713 of the Revised
Administrative Code for failing to submit manifests and obtain clearance from the
Bureau of Customs for the vessel "Antarctic."

Primicias filed a motion to have assessors assist in his trial, as authorized by Section 49
of Republic Act No. 409, the Revised Charter of the City of Manila. The City Fiscal
opposed the motion, and the trial court denied it, holding that the Rules of Court,
effective July 1, 1940, repealed previous laws on assessors. Primicias then petitioned
the Supreme Court to prohibit the respondent Judge from proceeding without assessors
and sought a writ of preliminary injunction.

Issue

Whether the petitioner, Cipriano P. Primicias, is entitled to a trial with the aid of
assessors under Section 49 of Republic Act No. 409, despite the Rules of Court not
incorporating provisions for assessors.

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Cipriano P. Primicias. The Court
held that:

Substantive vs. Procedural Law: The right to a trial with the aid of assessors is
substantive, not merely procedural. Substantive law defines rights and duties, while
procedural law prescribes the methods of enforcing those rights. The provisions
concerning assessors create a substantive right to their assistance in trials.
Re-enactment by Reference: Section 49 of Republic Act No. 409, by referencing the
Code of Civil Procedure, effectively re-enacted the provisions regarding assessors,
maintaining their applicability despite not being included in the Rules of Court. This
reference was deemed an intentional act by Congress to preserve the right to
assessors.

Uniformity of Rules: The Court dismissed the contention that Section 49 violates the
constitutional requirement for uniformity of procedural rules across courts of the same
grade. The Court reasoned that the provisions on assessors remain applicable not just
in Manila but potentially in other jurisdictions, as they were not explicitly repealed.

Abuse of Discretion: The Court found that the respondent Judge acted with abuse of
discretion in denying the petitioner the aid of assessors, as it is a substantive right
protected under the law.

Therefore, the Supreme Court granted the petition, mandating the trial court to proceed
with the assistance of assessors in the trial of the pending criminal cases against
Primicias.