LEZAMA vs. RODRIGUEZ 23 SCRA 1166|G.R. No. L-25643|JUNE 27, 1968 PETITION: Appeal PETITIONERS: SPS. JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA and PAQUITA LEZAMA RESPONDENTS: HON. JESUS RODRIGUEZ (Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo) JOSE DINEROS (in his capacity as Receiver of the LA PAZ ICE PLANT & COLD STORAGE STORAGE CO.) and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS
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
DOCTRINE: The reason for the privilege of husband and wife not to testify against each other is the natural repugnance in every fairminded person to compelling a wife or husband to be the means of the other’s condemnation and to subjecting the culprit to the humiliation of being condemned by the words of his intimate life partner.
deals with 2 different matters which rest on different grounds of policy 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
FACTS:
ice plant, the spouses in gross and evident bad faith, and in 1.) Jose S. Dineros, acting as receiver of the La Paz Ice Plant &
fraudulent conspiracy made it appear that the ice plant
Cold Storage Co. in Iloilo filed an action in the Court of First
obtained a P150k loan from Roque and allegedly upon an
Instance of Iloilo for the annulment of a judgment rendered
authority vested by the board of directors. that the spouses
against the La Paz Ice Plant by the Court of First Instance of
manipulated the books o fthe ice plant to make it appear
Manila.
that the loan was obtained
2.) It was alleged that because of the mismanagement by the
7.) the spouses answered by denying the allegations above,
Lezamas, the ice plant was placed under the receivership of
that they did not contest the complaint for collection since
Dineros; that Roque brought an action in CFI Manila against
they believed that the action was legitimate and the
the ice plant for the collection of P150,000 which Roque
allegations were true
supposedly lent to the ice plant; that instead of serving the
8.) The spouses did not deny the allegation that it was Paquita,
summons against Dineros, it was served on the spouses;
who as secretary signed the minutes of the meeting where
and that through the collusion of the spouses and roque, the latter was able to obtain a judgment against the ice plant
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
10.)The trial court affirmed the petition to bring in Paquita as witness and required her to appear. 11.)The spouses filed an action for certiorari but the CA dismissed the petition
ISSUE: Whether a wife, who is a co-defendant of her husband in an action, may be examined as a hostile witness by the adverse party under Section 6 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, without infringing on her marital privilege not to testify against her husband under Section 20(b) of Rule 130.
HELD: The interests of husband and wife in this case are necessarily interrelated. Testimony adverse to the wife’s own interests would tend to show the existence of collusive fraud between the spouses and would then work havoc upon their common defense that the loan was not fictitious. There is the possibility, too, that the wife, in order to soften her own guilt, if guilty she is, may unwittingly testify in a manner entirely disparaging to the interests of the husband. Because of the unexpansive wording of the rule which provides merely that the wife cannot be examined "for or against her husband without his consent," it is further argued that "when husband and wife are parties to an action, there is no reason why either may not be examined as a witness for or against himself or herself alone," and his or her testimony could operate only against himself or herself. Even if such view were generally acceptable as an exception to the rule, or even as a separate doctrine, 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 of the wife is to prove that charge.
DISPOSITIVE: ACCORDINGLY, the resolutions appealed from are reversed, and this case is ordered remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings in accordance with la w. No costs.
