LEZAMA VS.

RODRIGUEZ,

G.R. L-25643, JUNE 27, 1986

PONENTE: CASTRO, J.:

FACTS: La Paz Ice Plant Inc. in Iloilo, led by its president Jose Manuel Lezama was
going bankrupt and so the company was placed under receivership. During the
pendency of the receivership Marciano Roque being a resident of Manila brought an
action against the company in the CFI of Manila for the collection of a sum he
supposedly had lent to the company in the amount of P150,000.

Jose Dineros who was acting as receiver of the La Paz Ice Plant after La Paz
Ice Plant received unfavorable judgment in the CFI of Manila upon the collection
case, filed an action in the CFI of Iloilo for the annulment of the judgment of the CFI
of Manila.

The case was heard in the CFI of Iloilo. And at the hearing, Dineros asked the
court to issue a subpoena to Paquita Lezama wife of Jose Manuel Lezama to testify
as a hostile witness. The request was granted by the court over the objection of the
petitioners invoking the Marital Disqualification Rule.

ISSUE: W/N a wife who is a co-defendant of her husband in an action may be

examined as a hostile witness by the adverse party without infringing on her marital
privilege not to testify against her husband even concerning alleged fraud?

RULING: NO. She may not be examined as a hostile witness.

The Court ruled that the Marital Disqualification Rule is two edged the
disqualification of husband and wife to testify in each others behalf, as well as the
privilege not to testify against each other. In the former, the disqualification is
extrinsic, the compelling reason is coming from the outside, which is the law itself.
In the latter, it becomes a privilege. The basis of the Marital Disqualification Rule is
the relationship of the spouses.

Whether Paquita Lexamas testimony will turn out to be adverse or beneficial

to her own interest, the inevitable result would be to pit her against her husband.
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.
 The case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings in
accordance with law.