[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
114 views2 pages

Lezama v. Rodriguez

This case discusses the marital privilege and whether a wife can be compelled to testify as an adverse party witness against her husband. The case involved a lawsuit alleging fraud by a husband and wife in obtaining a loan. The court ruled that the wife could not be compelled to testify, as her testimony would inevitably pit her against her husband and interrelate their interests, even if aimed at showing her own participation in the alleged fraud. Allowing such testimony would undermine their common defense and work against their joint interests in the case.

Uploaded by

Mara Clara
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
114 views2 pages

Lezama v. Rodriguez

This case discusses the marital privilege and whether a wife can be compelled to testify as an adverse party witness against her husband. The case involved a lawsuit alleging fraud by a husband and wife in obtaining a loan. The court ruled that the wife could not be compelled to testify, as her testimony would inevitably pit her against her husband and interrelate their interests, even if aimed at showing her own participation in the alleged fraud. Allowing such testimony would undermine their common defense and work against their joint interests in the case.

Uploaded by

Mara Clara
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Lezama v.

Rodriguez (23 SCRA 1166) MARITAL PRIVILEGE

Facts: 1. Jose S. Dineros, acting as receiver of the La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co. filed for
the annulment of a judgment rendered against the La Paz Ice Plant.
2. Named as defendants were Marciano C. Roque, in whose favor judgment was
rendered, and the spouses Jose Manuel and Paquita Lezama.
3. 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 against the ice plant for
the collection of P150,000 which Roque supposedly lent to the ice plant.
4. Summons were served not on the receiver but on spouses Lezama; and that through
the collusion of the spouses , Roque was able to obtain a judgment by default against the ice
plant.
5. At the Hearing, Dineros asked the court to issue a subpoena to Paquita Lezama to
testify as a witness summoned by the plaintiffs.
6. The request for subpoena indicated that Paquita was to do no more than testify as an
adverse party in the case.
7. Dineros alleged that 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; that the spouses manipulated the books of
the ice plant to make it appear that the loan was obtained.
8. Petitioners denied the charge that the loan was fictitious but 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.
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.
12.Hence, this petition.

Issue: 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.

Held: No. 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 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.

Indeed, in those jurisdictions which allow one spouse to be subjected to examination by


the adverse party as a hostile witness when both spouses are parties to the action, either the
interests of the spouses are separate or separable, or the spouse offered as a witness is merely
a formal or nominal party.

You might also like