Facts:

This case, Fermin A. Bagadiong vs. Hon. Feliciano S. Gonzales, Clemente Abundo, Rafael Villaluna, and Francisco A. Perfecto, revolves around a petition for certiorari filed by Fermin A. Bagadiong, the petitioner, on April 27, 1966. The principal subject of the petition was an order issued on April 18, 1966, by Judge Feliciano S. Gonzales of the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes. The underlying civil case, Civil Case No. 546, was initiated by plaintiffs Clemente Abundo and Rafael Villaluna against several defendants, including Bagadiong, who served as the Provincial Treasurer, along with other provincial officials.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were authorizing disbursements from a purported annual Provincial Budget for the fiscal year 1965-1966, which they claimed was falsified as it was never legitimately approved by the Provincial Board. These allegations surfaced after the plaintiffs queried the validity of the Resolution No. 62-A purportedly approving the s

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The petitioner, Fermin A. Bagadiong, initiated a special civil action for certiorari on April 27, 1966.
• The action sought to annul an order dated April 18, 1966, issued by the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes in Civil Case No. 546.
• The order in question allowed the petitioner, who was also a defendant in the underlying civil case, to testify as a witness for the plaintiffs/respondents.

Underlying Civil Case Details

• The original civil case numbered 546 involved plaintiffs/respondents (Clemente Abundo and Rafael Villaluna) seeking injunctions, including a prohibition, preliminary prohibitory, and mandatory injunction.
• The case arose from allegations that defendants, including petitioner Bagadiong (in his official capacity as Provincial Treasurer), were unlawfully authorizing and disbursing public funds from a purported annual Provincial Budget for 1965-1966.
• It was alleged that the budget was falsified, as it purportedly had been approved by the Provincial Board under Resolution No. 62-A, which the plaintiffs claimed never existed.
• Plaintiffs argued that the continued use of this falsified budget for public disbursements would cause irreparable damage to the Province of Catanduanes, justifying the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Procedural History and Court Orders

• On January 12, 1966, plaintiffs filed the civil case for injunction relief.
• A writ of preliminary injunction was issued on January 14, 1966 by the Court of First Instance, enjoining defendants from further disbursements under the alleged falsified budget.
• Defendants, including petitioner Bagadiong, moved for reconsideration on January 17, 1966, seeking dissolution of the injunction.
• A complaint in intervention was filed on January 21, 1966 by respondent Francisco A. Perfecto, seeking declaration of the budget’s nullity and reimbursement of disbursed funds in addition to exemplary damages.
• On January 31, 1966, the respondent Judge denied the motion to lift the preliminary injunction.
• During the trial on April 18, 1966, the plaintiffs attempted to call petitioner Bagadiong as a witness, triggering his claim of the constitutional right against self-incrimination.
• The respondent Judge overruled the objection by holding that, in a civil case, the privilege against self-incrimination did not bar the petitioner from testifying, reasoning that the right is invoked only when a question eliciting a criminating response is asked.

Basis for the Petition

• Petitioner Bagadiong asserted that the respondent Judge exceeded his jurisdiction and abused his discretion by allowing him to testify despite his self-incrimination claim.
• He argued that the rule authorizing the calling of an adverse party as a witness applies exclusively in purely civil actions where the defendant does not face criminal prosecution risks.
• The petitioner maintained that his premature invocation of the self-incrimination privilege, prior to any incriminatory question being propounded, was justified.

Issue:

Jurisdictional and Discretionary Authority

• Whether the respondent Judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction in ordering petitioner Bagadiong to take the witness stand.
• Whether such action constituted grave abuse of discretion given the petitioner’s constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Self-Incrimination Privilege in Civil Proceedings

• Whether a party defendant may preemptively invoke the right against self-incrimination in a civil case before any incriminating question has been asked.
• Whether the Rules of Court, specifically Section 6, Rule 132, permit a party to call an adverse party as a witness regardless of self-incrimination concerns.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)