Ah this is an all too
different case compared to the Castaneda case and all the others. Because, take
note, in this case it’s the other way around. There never was a move to
disqualify an adverse party’s wife nor husband in invoking the marital
disqualification rule. Here the respondents even want the wife to testify. It asked
the court to issue a subpoena to the adverse party’s wife to testify as a
hostile witness.
Here’s what happened. La Paz
Ice Plant Inc. in Iloilo, led by its president Jose Manuel Lezama was going
bankrupt and so the company was placed under receivership. During the pendency
of the receivership Marciano Roque being a resident of Manila brought an action
against the company in the CFI of Manila for the collection of a sum he
supposedly had lent to the company in the amount of P150,000.
So what happened was, Jose
Dineros who was acting as receiver of the La Paz Ice Plant after receiving
unfavorable judgment in the CFI of Manila upon the collection case, filed an
action in the CFI of Iloilo for the annulment of the judgment of the CFI of
Manila. So here we have two venues. The case in CFI of Manila who rendered the
judgment in favor of Marciano Roque for the collection of the lent money. And
the case in CFI of Iloilo filed by Jose Dineros seeking the annulment of
judgment of the former.
And take note, in his filed
action he named Marciano Roque and the spouses JOSE MANUEL & PAQUITA LEZAMA
as defendants alleging that 1. because
of the mismanagement of the Lezamas the La Paz Ice Plant was placed under
receivership. 2. That through the collusion of the Lezamas, Roque obtained a
favored judgment against the company. And 3. that summons by the CFI of Manila was
served not on him who is the receiver but on the spouses Lezamas. Claiming that
by doing so, the CFI of Manila acquired no jurisdiction of the case and
therefore the court decision was void.
Defendant spouses which are
herein petitioners (before the SC) while admitting the company’s placement on
receivership maintained that 1. Jose Manuel Lezama nevertheless remained
president even while on receivership and as such he had the authority to
receive court summons in behalf of the company.
And 2. Denied entering into collusion with Roque and averred they did
not contest Roque’s claim because they knew it to be legitimate pursuant to a
board of director’s resolution.
Now, here comes the
controversial issue. Case was heard in the CFI of Iloilo. And at the hearing,
Dineros asked the court to subpoena testificandum
Paquita Lezama wife of Jose Manuel Lezama to testify as a hostile witness. The
request was granted by the court over the objection of the petitioners invoking
the Marital Disqualification Rule.
Question, can a wife who is a
co-defendant of her husband in an action may be examined as a hostile witness
by the adverse party without infringing on her marital privilege not to testify
against her husband even concerning alleged fraud?
Court says NO. She may not be examined as a hostile witness.
The Supreme Court ruling here
was worth pondering. I think the court held it beautifully. Court said the
Marital Disqualification Rule is two edged. 1. The disqualification of husband
and wife to testify in each other’s behalf. 2. AS WELL AS THE PRIVILEGE NOT TO
TESTIFY AGAINST EACH OTHER. In the former, the disqualification is extrinsic,
the compelling reason is coming from the outside, which is the law itself. In
the latter, it becomes a privilege. Intrinsic. A decision not to testify.
We must understand the essence
of this law. And it is not pecuniary interest. The basis of the Marital Disqualification
Rule is the RELATIONSHIP of the spouses.
I mean you know, who in his/her right mind would say to the other spouse
“I’m going to testify against you. You might
want to give me your consent” whatdfu-k.
If we continue tolerating that in court we might end up seeing hundreds of couples
with crooked reasoning minds.
Here’s the exact words of the
Supreme Court:
“It is a natural repugnance in every fair-minded
person to compel a wife or a husband to be the means of the other’s
condemnation. And subjecting the culprit to the humiliation of being condemned
by the words of his intimate life partner” Beautiful isn’t it?
Even if her testimony will
support the adverse party’s charges, the more the reason that compelling
Paquita Lezama to testify against her husband would be tantamount to a
violation Sec. 20 of Rule 130.
As we just have said, the
essence of that law is the relationship between both spouses. Not anything
else.
