LEZAMA vs. RODRIGUEZ
) The spouses answered by admitting that the ice plant was
23 SCRA 1166|G.R. No. L-25643|JUNE 27, 1968
PETITION: Appeal
PETITIONERS: SPS. JOSE MANUEL LEZAMA and PAQUITA LEZAMA
RESPONDENTS: HON. JESUS RODRIGUEZ (Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo) JOSE DINEROS (in his capacity as Receiver of the
LA PAZ ICE PLANT & COLD STORAGE CO.) and THE HON. COURT OF
APPEALS
DOCTRINE: The reason for the privilege of husband and wife not to
testify against each other is the natural repugnance in every fair-
minded person to compelling a wife or husband to be the means of
the other’s condemnation and to subjecting the culprit to the
humiliation of being condemned by the words of his intimate life
partner.
FACTS:
1.) Jose S. Dineros, acting as receiver of the La Paz Ice Plant &
Cold Storage Co. in Iloilo filed an action in the Court of First
Instance of Iloilo for the annulment of a judgment rendered
against the La Paz Ice Plant by the Court of First Instance of
Manila.
2.) 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 in CFI Manila against
the ice plant for the collection of P150,000 which Roque
supposedly lent to the ice plant; that instead of serving the
summons against Dineros, it was served on the spouses;
and that through the collusion of the spouses and roque,
the latter was able to obtain a judgment against the ice
plant
3.
placed in receivership, but Mr. Lezama remained as
president and had authority to receive in behalf of the
company. They denied collusion with Roque
4.) At the Hearing, Dineros asked the court to issue a subpoena
to Paquita Lezama to testify as a witness summoned by the
plaintiffs. This was granted over the objection of the
petitioners who invoked Rule 130 sec. 20(b). said provision
deals with 2 different matters which rest on different
grounds of policy
5.) the request for subpoena indicated that Paquita was to do
no more than testify as an adverse party in the case, and
indeed, in the light of the allegations both in the complaint
and in the answer, the request was apparently one that
could reasonably be expected to be made
6.) Dineros alleged that in obtaining a judgement against the
ice plant, 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 o fthe ice plant to make it appear
that the loan was obtained
7.) the spouses answered by denying the allegations above,
that they did not contest the complaint for collection since
they believed that the action was legitimate and the
allegations were true
8.) The spouses 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 DISPOSITIVE: ACCORDINGLY, the resolutions appealed from are
witness and required her to appear. reversed, and this case is ordered remanded to the court of origin
11.) The spouses filed an action for certiorari but the CA for further proceedings in accordance with law. No costs.
dismissed the petition

ISSUE: Whether a wife, who is a co-defendant of her husband in an

action, may be examined as a hostile witness by the adverse party
under Section 6 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, without infringing
on her marital privilege not to testify against her husband under
Section 20(b) of Rule 130.

HELD: 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. There is the possibility, too, that the wife, in
order to soften her own guilt, if guilty she is, may unwittingly testify
in a manner entirely disparaging to the interests of the husband.

Because of the unexpansive wording of the rule which provides

merely that the wife cannot be examined "for or against her
husband without his consent," it is further argued that "when
husband and wife are parties to an action, there is no reason why
either may not be examined as a witness for or against himself or
herself alone," and his or her testimony could operate only against
himself or herself.

Even if such view were generally acceptable as an exception to the

rule, or even as a separate doctrine, it would be inapplicable in this
case where the main charge is collusive fraud between the spouses
and a third person, and the evident purpose of examination of the
wife is to prove that charge.