G.R. No. 136051 - Rosete vs. Lim

Case Summary (G.R. No. 136051)

Factual Background

On 5 December 1995, Juliano Lim and Lilia Lim filed a Complaint for Annulment, Specific Performance with Damages against, among others, AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS), Espreme Realty and Development Corporation, Alfredo P. Rosete, Maj. Oscar Mapalo, Chito P. Rosete, Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), and the Register of Deeds of the Province of Mindoro Occidental. The complaint sought annulment of a Deed of Sale executed by AFP-RSBS in favor of Espreme Realty, restoration of ownership and title to respondents, and cancellation and transfer of titles.

Early Motions and Trial Court Rulings

On 18 January 1996, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue, and on 23 January 1996 petitioner Alfredo P. Rosete filed a Supplemental Motion to Dismiss. Multiple defendants, including AFP-RSBS, Espreme Realty, and BPI, filed similar motions. The trial court denied all Motions to Dismiss in an Order dated 12 March 1996 and denied subsequent motions for reconsideration on 24 May 1996.

Interlocutory Appeals and Pleadings filed ex abudanti cautela

Petitioners informed the trial court that they filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 40837) on 5 June 1996 to challenge the denials. On 6 June 1996 petitioners filed answers labeled ex abudanti cautela; those answers contained defenses but were asserted to be filed only out of abundant caution pending resolution of their appellate petitions.

Notice to Take Depositions and Petitioners' Objection

On 28 May 1997, respondents filed a Notice to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination scheduling depositions of Oscar Mapalo and Chito P. Rosete for June 18 and 20, 1997. On 13 June 1997 petitioners filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion and Objection to the taking of their depositions. They argued that the depositions could not be taken without leave of court because answers had been filed ex abudanti cautela and because two criminal cases then pending, in which Juliano Lim was private complainant and petitioners were respondents, would expose them to self-incrimination.

Trial Court Orders Authorizing Deposition

In an Order dated 22 July 1997 the trial court denied petitioners' objection and scheduled the depositions. Petitioners filed motions for reconsideration and other urgent motions, which the trial court denied in an Order dated 27 August 1997, again authorizing the taking of depositions.

Subsequent Proceedings: Striking of Answers, Default and Ex-parte Evidence

On 29 October 1997 the trial court ordered the striking out of the ex abudanti cautela answers of Mapalo and Chito P. Rosete for refusal to be sworn pursuant to Rule 29 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, declared them in default, and allowed plaintiffs to present evidence ex parte against them. Petitioners filed multiple motions for reconsideration and additional petitions for certiorari to the Court of Appeals challenging these orders. The trial court conducted and terminated the ex parte presentation of evidence on 11 December 1997.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On 24 August 1998 the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 45400) and upheld the trial court Orders dated 22 July 1997 and 27 August 1997, which allowed and scheduled the depositions. The Court of Appeals denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration on 19 October 1998.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioners brought the matter to the Supreme Court on two principal grounds: (I) that the trial court acted in grave abuse of discretion by ruling that the taking of depositions would not violate the constitutional right against self-incrimination of Oscar Mapalo and Chito P. Rosete, and (II) that the trial court erred in permitting depositions without leave of court because answers had not properly been served and issues had not yet been joined, and that joinder of issues was required before depositions under Section 1, Rule 24 could be taken without leave.

Petitioners' Contentions on Self-incrimination

Petitioners contended that the pending criminal charges—described in the record as Batasan Pambansa Blg. 22 and Estafa—arising from the same factual allegations would make any deposition testimony incriminatory. They argued that, as accused in the criminal cases, they could refuse to testify altogether and that compelling depositions in the civil case would therefore compel them to be witnesses against themselves in violation of Section 17, Article III, 1987 Constitution.

Legal Principles on the Privilege Against Self-incrimination

The Court reiterated the constitutional guarantee that "No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." The privilege extends to any person giving evidence in civil, criminal or administrative proceedings and permits refusal to answer a specific incriminating question. The Court distinguished the position of an ordinary witness in civil proceedings, who must appear, be sworn, and may claim the privilege only when a specific incriminatory question is asked, from the position of an accused in a criminal prosecution who may decline to take the stand at all. The Court relied on People v. Ayson and related authority to explain that only when a civil proceeding partakes of the nature of a criminal prosecution may a party in such civil proceeding refuse altogether to testify.

Application of Self-incrimination Doctrine to the Case

The Court found that the present case was a civil action for annulment and specific performance and did not, by its nature, partake of a criminal proceeding. The mere pendency of separate criminal cases based on similar facts did not convert the civil action into a criminal proceeding. Therefore Alfredo P. Rosete, Oscar P. Mapalo and Chito P. Rosete, as parties in a civil suit, had the same status as ordinary witnesses and could invoke the privilege only when an incriminating question was actually prop

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 136051)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The petitioners are Alfredo P. Rosete, Oscar P. Mapalo and Chito P. Rosete, who were defendants in the trial court action below.
The respondents are Juliano Lim and Lilia Lim, who filed the complaint below and are the plaintiffs in the trial court.
The underlying action in Branch 77, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City was a civil complaint for Annulment, Specific Performance with Damages docketed as Civil Case No. Q-95-25803.
The petitioners sought relief by filing petitions for certiorari in the Court of Appeals and later filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals' dismissal.
The petition to the Supreme Court assailed Court of Appeals' decision affirming the trial court Orders dated 22 July 1997 and 27 August 1997 that allowed the taking of depositions of petitioners by oral examination.
The Supreme Court docketed the case as G.R. No. 136051 and rendered the present Decision on June 8, 2006 dismissing the petition for lack of merit.

Key Factual Allegations

On December 5, 1995, respondents filed a complaint seeking annulment of a Deed of Sale and restoration of titles alleged to have been transferred improperly.
The petitioners filed Motions to Dismiss on jurisdictional and venue grounds on January 18 and 23, 1996, which the trial court denied on March 12, 1996, and denied reconsideration on May 24, 1996.
The petitioners filed answers described as ex abudanti cautela and contemporaneously pursued certiorari remedies in the Court of Appeals challenging various interlocutory orders of the trial court.
On May 28, 1997, respondents gave Notice to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination of petitioners Oscar Mapalo and Chito Rosete scheduled for June 18 and 20, 1997.
Petitioners objected on grounds including the pendency of criminal complaints against them and asserted that taking depositions would violate their constitutional right against self-incrimination.
The trial court denied the objections and scheduled the depositions by Orders dated July 22, 1997 and August 27, 1997, and later, for refusal to be sworn, struck the ex abudanti cautela answers and declared the petitioners in default.
The Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 45400 affirmed the trial court Orders on August 24, 1998, and denied reconsideration on October 19, 1998.

Issues Presented

Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals gravely abused their discretion by allowing the taking of depositions of petitioners despite the pendency of related criminal cases and thereby violating the constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Whether the taking of depositions required leave of court given that petitioners filed answers ex abudanti cautela and whether issues had been joined so that Section 1, Rule 24 of the Revised Rules of Court permitted taking depositions without leave.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioners contended that they could refuse to give depositions in the civil case because the testimony would tend to incriminate them in two pending criminal cases and that as accused persons they had the right to refuse to take the witness stand altogether.
Respondents countered that petitioners, as parties in a civil action, were analogous to ordinary witnesses who must appear when subpoenaed and who may invoke the privilege only when specific incriminatory questions are actually propounded.
Petitioners further contended that their answers were o