Case Digest (G.R. No. 136051)
Facts:
Alfredo P. Rosete, Oscar P. Mapalo and Chito P. Rosete v. Juliano Lim and Lilia Lim, G.R. No. 136051, June 08, 2006, Supreme Court First Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are private respondents in a civil suit filed by Juliano Lim and Lilia Lim; the civil case (Civil Case No. Q‑95‑25803) sought annulment of a deed of sale and restoration of certain land titles allegedly transferred by AFP‑RSBS to Espreme Realty.On 5 December 1995 respondents filed the civil complaint in Branch 77, RTC, Quezon City, naming among the defendants petitioners and other entities. Petitioners moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue; the trial court denied the motions in orders dated 12 March 1996 and 24 May 1996. Petitioners sought relief by petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 40837) which was dismissed. Several defendants, including petitioners, filed answers — some styled ex abudanti cautela — while parallel controversies produced other CA petitions (e.g., CA‑G.R. SP No. 41821).
Respondents served a Notice to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination for petitioners Oscar P. Mapalo and Chito P. Rosete for June 1997. Petitioners objected, asserting (a) their right against self‑incrimination because two criminal complaints (Batasan Pambansa Blg. 22 and Estafa) filed by Juliano Lim were pending based on the same facts, and (b) that depositions could not be taken without leave because their answers had been filed only ex abudanti cautela and issues were not yet joined. The RTC denied their objections by Orders dated 22 July 1997 and 27 August 1997 and later struck out the ex abudanti cautela answers, declared petitioners in default, and permitted ex parte presentation of plaintiffs' evidence.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 45400) which dismissed the petition and denied reconsideration (Decision dated 24 August 1998; Resolution 19...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court violate petitioners’ constitutional right against self‑incrimination by permitting their oral depositions while criminal complaints based on the same facts were pending?
- Could the trial court properly permit depositions without leave of court given that petitioners’ answers were filed ex abudanti cautela and, according to petitioners, t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)