JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA AND PAQUITA LEZAMA, PETITIONERS V. HON. JESUS RODRIGUEZ, JUDGE OF CFI ILOILO, JOSE DINEROS AND CA, RESPONDENTS GR no. L-25643 June 27 1968 Castro, J.
1. Dineros, acting as receiver of the La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co. in Iloilo, together with 2 others filed an action in the CFI Iloilo for the annulment of a judgment rendered against the ice plant by CFI Manila in a civil case. The defendants included spouses Jose Manuel and Paquita Lezama and Marciano C. Roque (judgment was rendered in his favor in the earlier civil case). 2. It was alleged that because of the mismanagement by the Lezamas, the ice plant was placed under the receivership of Dineros; that Roque brought an action in CFI Manila against the ice plant for the collection of P150,000 which Roque supposedly lent to the ice plant; that instead of serving the summons against Dineros, it was served on the spouses; and that through the collusion of the spouses and roque, the latter was able to obtain a judgment against the ice plant. 3. The spouses answered by admitting that the ice plant was placed in receivership, but Mr. Lezama remained as president and had authority to receive in behalf of the company. They denied collusion with Roque 4. At the Hearing, Dineros asked the court to issue a subpoena to Paquita Lezama to testify as a witness summoned by the plaintiffs. This was granted over the objection of the petitioners who invoked Rule 130 sec. 20(b). said provision deals with 2 different matters which rest on different grounds of policy: a. Disqualification of husband and wife to testify on each other's behalf & their privilege not to testify against each other. Common law theory: relationship of spouses, not their pecuniary interest is the basis of the disqualification. “disqualification by relationship” b. it is repugnant in every fair-minded person to compel a wife or husband to be the subject of the other's condemnation and to subjecting the culprit to the humiliation of being condemned by the words of his intimate life partner 5. the request for subpoena indicated that Paquita was to do no more than testify as an adverse party in the case, and indeed, in the light of the allegations both in the complaint and in the answer, the request was apparently one that could reasonably be expected to be made. 6. Dineros alleged that in obtaining a judgement against the ice plant, the spouses in gross and evident bad faith, and in fraudulent conspiracy made it appear that the ice plant obtained a P150k loan from Roque and allegedly upon an authority vested by the board of directors. Also, that the spouses manipulated the books o fthe ice plant to make it appear that the loan was obtained 7. the spouses answered by denying the allegations above, that they did not contest the complaint for collection since they believed that the action was legitimate and the allegations were true. 8. The spouses did not deny the allegation that it was Paquita, who as secretary signed the minutes of the meeting where Jose Manuel was allegedly authorized to negotiate the loan. 9. Dineros wanted Paquita not as a witness for or against her husband but as an adverse party in the case as provided for in Rule 132 sec. 6. a. Judge Jesus Rodriguez, affirmed the petition to bring in Paquita as a witness and required her to appear. The spouses filed an action for certiorari but the CA dismissed the petition. MR denied hence this appeal. ISSUE: In a case where the wife is a co-defendant in a suit charging fraud against the spouses, can the wife be compelled to testify as an adverse party witness concerning her participation in the alleged fraud without violating Sec. 20B of Rule 130? NO It was argued that she may be compelled to testify but her testimony would be receivable only against her. On the other hand, it was argued that it will violate Rule 130 sec. 20(b). What was alleged was fraudulent conspiracy, the wife is called upon to testify as an adverse party witness on the bases of her participation in the alleged fraudulent scheme (as secretary).
She will be asked to testify on what actually transpired during the meeting. Whether her testimony will turn out to be adverse or beneficial to her own interest, the inevitable result would be to pit her against her husband. The interests of the 2 are necessarily interrelated. A testimony against her own interest would show the existence of collusive fraud and she may unwittingly testify against the interests of her husband. It was argued that as an exception to the rule (based on the wording of the rule) was that there was no reason why either of them may not be examined as a witness for or against himself or herself alone. Even if this was acceptable, it would be inapplicable in this case where the main charge is collusive fraud between the spouses and a third person, and the evident purpose of examination was to prove the charge. Finally it was alleged that to prevent the wife from testifying would encourage alliance of husband and wife as an instrument of fraud (best way of preventing discovery since co-conspirator is made immune to the most convenient mode of discovery available to the opposite party). SC: sec. 6 of rule 132 is a mere concession, that rule of discovery should not be expanded in meaning or scopse as to allow examination of fone's spouse in a situation where this natural repugnance obtains Besides it wasn’t shown that no other evidence that Dineros could use to prove the charge. Held: resolution appealed from REVERSED. Case remanded for further proceedings. Justin Benedict A. Moreto
