Primicias vs.
Ocampo (MARZO) under Section 49 of RA 409, or the Revised Charter of the
June 30, 1953 | BAUTISTA ANGELO, J. | Reference Statutes
PETITIONER: CIPRIANO P. PRIMICIAS
RESPONDENTS: FELICISIMO OCAMPO, as Judge-at-large
presiding over Branch C of the Court of First Instance of Manila
and EUGENIO ANGELES, as City Fiscal of Manila, representing
the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
DOCTRINE:
1. Statutes which refer to other statutes and make them
applicable to the subject for legislation are called
“reference statutes.” These are frequently used to avoid
encumbering the statute books by unnecessary
repetition and have been recognized as an approved
method of legislation in the absence of constitutional
limitations.
2. The adoption of an earlier statute by reference makes it
as much as a part of the latter act as though it had been
incorporated at full length.
FACTS:
● Primicias was charged before the Court of First Instance of
Manila with two statutory offenses:
o Violation for Commonwealth Act No. 606 for
knowingly chartering a vessel of Philippine registry to
an alien without the approval of the President
o Violation of Section 129 in relation to Section 2713
of the Revised Administrative Code for his failure to
submit to the Collector of Customs the manifest and
certain authenticated documents for the vessel
“Antarctic” and failed to obtain the necessary
clearance from the Bureau of Customs prior to this
vessel’s departure to a foreign port
● In April 1952, before the trial, Primicias filed a motion
praying that assessors be appointed to assist the court in
considering the questions of fact involved as authorized
City of Manila (approved on June 188, 1949).
o Said section reads: “the aid of assessors in the trial
of any civil or criminal action in the Municipal Court,
or the Court of First Instance, within the City, may
be invoked in the manner provided in the Code of
Civil Procedure.”
● In the same month, the CFI Manila denied the motion
holding that the promulgation of the Rules of Court by the
Supreme Court which became effective in July 1, 1940
expressly omitted the portions pf the Code of Civil
Procedure regarding assessors in said Rules of Court, and
that the reference to said statute by Section 29, R.A. No.
409 should be deemed as a mere surplusage.
● Aggrieved, Primicias now comes before the Supreme Court
imputing abuse of discretion to the respondent Judge.
ISSUE: May trial with the aid of assessors be allowed?
RULING: The Supreme Court held in the affirmative.
SHORT RULING FOR RECIT: The respondent judge
committed an error in holding that since the Rules of Court
omitted provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure on trial with
the aid of assessors the latter is deemed repealed by omission.
First because trial with the aid of assessors is a substantive
right being part of the Code of Civil Procedure – a substantive
law. The Rules of Court vis-à-vis the rule making power of the
Supreme Court is merely remedial in nature, it cannot affect
substantive law.
Second, even assuming that the right to trial with the aid of
assessors granted under the Code of Civil Procedure has been
repealed by the Rules of Court, which was promulgated in
1940, a latter statute, R.A. No. 409, enacted in 1949, made
reference to this provision in the Code of Civil Procedure thus
effectively re-affirming and reenacting the same provision.
● The Supreme Court began its discussion by recounting the
historical background of assessors.
o The first instance which allowed trial with the aid of
assessors in civil cases in inferior courts is Act No.
190 otherwise known as the Code of Civil Procedure
which took effect on October 1, 1901.
o Under Act No. 267 amending Act No. 183, the
original Charter of Manila, which was enacted on
October 17, 1901, trial with aid of assessors both in
civil and criminal cases was allowed in the Manila
courts.
o In 1914, trial with aid of assessors in lower courts
was allowed in provinces for criminal cases was
allowed with the enactment of Act No. 2369.
o In 1915, Act No. 2520 was passed extending the
same trial by assessors to the lower courts in
Mindanao and Sulu.
o The provision for trial with assessors under the
original Charter of Manila (Section 44 of Act No. 183)
was reenacted as Section 2449 in the 1916
Administrative Code (Act No. 2657)
o This Section 2449 of the 1916 Administrative Code
because 2477 of Act No. 2711 or the Revised
Administrative Code
o And Section 2477 in turn became Section 49 of
Republic Act No. 409, the present Charter of the City
of Manila which the petitioner now invokes. This
provision reads as follows:
▪ "SEC. 49. Assessors in the courts in the city.
— The aid of assessors in the trial of any civil
or criminal action in the municipal court, or
the Court of First Instance, within the city,
may be invoked in the manner provided
in the Code of Civil Procedure. It shall be
the duty of the Municipal Board to prepare
one list of the names of twenty-five residents
of the City best fitted by education, natural
ability and reputation for probity to sit as
assessors in the trial of actions in the
municipal court and a like list of persons to sit
as assessors in the trial of the action in the
Court of First Instance. The Board may at any
time strike any name from the list so
prepared, by reason of the death, permanent
disability, or unfitness of the person named;
and in case names are so stricken out, other
names shall be added in their place, to be
selected as in this section provided. Parties
desiring to avail themselves of the use of
assessors in the municipal or Court of First
Instance shall proceed as provided for by law
or rules of court; and the method of
summoning assessors, enforcing their
attendance, excusing them from attendance,
their compensation, oath duties and effect of
dissent from the opinion of the judges shall
be as provided in those laws or rules."
● The Supreme Court noted that if the above provision was to
be read plainly, it would easily show that such is allowed
under the statute, however, what’s equally important to
note is that under the present Constitution, “the existing
laws on pleasing, practice and procedure, are hereby
repealed as statues, and are declared rules of courts
subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and
modify the same.”
● Pursuant to this exclusive rule-making power, the Supreme
Court promulgated the present Rules of Court which failed
to incorporate the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure
which the respondent judge claims that it cannot now be
invoked.
● The claim of the respondent judge would be correct if trial
with the aid of assessors was merely a procedural right and
not a substantive one. However, trial with the aid of
assessors as granted under the Code of Civil Procedure and
under the old charter of Manila are parts of substantive law
and are not embraced by the rule making power of the
Supreme Court as the same Court has held in multiple
cases.
● Being substantive in nature, it is clear why these provisions
of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been incorporated in
the present Rules of Court because if the Supreme Court
had done so, it would be in contravention to its rule making
power.
 ● ASSUMING that this right to trial with the aid of assessors is
remedial in nature and that its failure to be included in the
Rules of Court caused its repeal, this can still be invoked by
the petitioner because it had been reaffirmed and reenacted
by R.A. 409 which was approved and enacted in 1949 or 9
years after the Rules of Court was promulgated.
● Or in other words, assuming that the right to trail with aid
of assessors was repealed by the Rules of Court, Section 49
of R.A. No 409, by stating expressly that “The aid of
assessors in the trial of any civil or criminal action in the
municipal court, or the Court of First Instance, within the
city, may be invoked in the manner provided in the
Code of Civil Procedure …” made reference to the former
statute thus effectively re-enacting the provision. But again,
this is not the case since the Rules of Court did not repeal
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure nor of the Charter
of Manila.
● The adoption of an earlier statute by reference makes it as
much as a part of the latter act as though it had been
incorporated at full length.
● Statutes which refer to other statutes and make them
applicable to the subject for legislation are called “reference
statutes.” These are frequently used to avoid encumbering
the statute books by unnecessary repetition, and have been
recognized as an approved method of legislation in the
absence of constitutional limitations.
● The Supreme Court concludes by ruling that the provisions
on assessors embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure are
still in force and that the same may still be invoked in light
of Section 49 of RA No. 409.

Wherefore, petition is hereby granted, without pronouncement

as to costs.