G.R. No. L-25643 - Lezama vs. Rodriguez

Hon. Jesus Rodriguez, Judge of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Iloilo.
Jose Dineros, in his capacity as receiver of the La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc.
The Honorable Court of Appeals.

Originally, an action was filed by Jose S. Dineros (the receiver) along with other parties to annul a judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 39327 against the La Paz Ice Plant by the CFI of Manila.
The complaint alleged mismanagement by the Lezamas leading to the receivership of the plant and claimed that through collusion, a judgment by default was procured in favor of Mariano C. Roque for a purported loan of P150,000.00.
The petitions’ defense maintained that while the plant was under receivership, Jose Manuel Lezama continued as its president with the authority to receive summons on behalf of the company, and that the alleged loan was a legitimate, duly contracted obligation.

The Lezamas were implicated in the controversy alleging fraudulent manipulation:

It was charged that incorrect service of summons on the spouses instead of on the receiver led to the original court’s asserted lack of jurisdiction.
The complaint detailed that Paquita Lezama, in her capacity as secretary, signed minutes authorizing a transaction and recorded this in the company’s books—actions alleged to support the charge of collusive fraud.

The action sought to test the truth of the alleged fraudulent transaction and the legitimacy of the resulting loan, which was in dispute and central to the case.

At the hearing, Jose S. Dineros moved the court to issue a subpoena for Paquita Lezama to testify as a witness summoned by the plaintiffs in accordance with the Rules of Court.
The petitioners objected invoking the provision that a wife cannot be examined for or against her husband without his consent, as provided under Section 20(b) of Rule 130.
The court, presided by Judge Jesus Rodriguez, ruled in the affirmative, compelling Paquita Lezama to appear and testify, a decision later affirmed by the trial court and dismissed by the Court of Appeals when the petitioners sought certiorari.

Whether a wife, who is a co-defendant alongside her husband in an action charging collusive fraud, may be compelled to testify as an adverse witness by the opposing party under Section 6 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court without violating her marital privilege under Section 20(b) of Rule 130.

Examination “for or against” a spouse is generally prohibited without the other spouse’s consent.

The scope of Rule 132 concerning the examination of hostile or adverse party witnesses and its limits when applied to spouses.
The potential conflict between the need for discovery in cases alleging fraudulent conspiracy and the protection of marital intimacy and individual interests.