Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:

The respondent Judge Wislizenus argued that the provisions of Act No. 190 permitted him to appoint assessors in special proceedings.  However, the petitioner Hagans contended that no authority in law exists for the appointment of assessors in such proceedings. Thus, petitioner herein filed an original petition, presented in the Supreme Court, for the writ of certiorari. Hence, this petition.

 

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Judge was authorized by law in a special proceeding to appoint assessors for purposes mentioned above.

 

HELD:

No. The respondent judge was not authorized to appoint assessors in special proceedings. Supreme Court made a distinct on what is the difference of "action" and "special proceeding". The former means an ordinary suit in a court of justice while the latter is every other remedy furnished by law. An action is a formal demand of one's legal rights in a court of justice in the manner prescribed by the court of law. It is a method applying legal remedies according to definite established rules. While a special proceeding may be defined as an application or proceedings,no formal pleadings are required, unless the statute expressly so provides. The remedy in special proceedings is generally granted upon an application or motion.

​

Applying in the case at bar, here, being different in nature, the Supreme Court held that judge is not authorized by law to appoint assessors because such authority is properly given to the judge in an ordinary action and not in a special proceeding.