Jose Manuel Lezama vs. Hon.

Jesus Rodriquez
GR no. L-25643
June 27 1968
Doctrine: Because of the unexpensive 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.

Facts:
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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

The spouses contended that the charge of loan was fictitious, they 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.

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. to wit:

Direct examination of unwilling or hostile witnesses . — A party may interrogate any unwilling or hostile witness by
leading questions. A party may call an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private
corporation or of a partnership or association which is an adverse party, and interrogate him by leading questions and
contradict and impeach him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party and the witness thus called
may be contradicted and impeached by or on behalf of the adverse party also, and may be cross-examined by the
adverse party only upon the subject-matter of his examination in chief.

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. They filed Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied, hence this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not 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: NO, It was argued that she may be compelled to testify but her testimony would be receivable only against her. It is even
suggested that "each may testify in his or her own behalf, although the testimony may inure to the benefit of the other spouse, or
against his or her own interest, although the testimony may also militate against the other spouse." On the other hand, it is insisted
that compelling Paquita Lezama to testify will transgress section 20(b) of Rule 130, especially if her testimony will support the plaintiff's
charge.

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, who made the entry in the books of the corporation.

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). Thus, Sec. 6 of rule 132 is a mere concession, that rule of discovery should
not be expanded in meaning or scope as to allow examination of one'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. Thus, resolution appealed from
REVERSED. Case remanded for further proceedings.