View full case

ALFREDO P. ROSETE v. JULIANO LIM

FACTS:

Respondents Juliano Lim and Lilia Lim filed a complaint for annulment, specific performance with damages against various defendants, including petitioners Oscar P. Mapalo and Chito P. Rosete, before Branch 77 of the RTC of Quezon City. The complaint sought the annulment of a Deed of Sale and the restoration of ownership and title of certain lands to respondents.

Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of jurisdiction and improper venue. The motions to dismiss filed by all defendants were denied by the court, and the motions for reconsideration were also denied.

Respondents filed a notice to take deposition upon oral examination of petitioners Mapalo and Rosete. Petitioners objected to the taking of the deposition, arguing that it could not proceed without leave of court as no answer has been served and the issues have not been joined. Petitioners also contended that the deposition would violate their right against self-incrimination as there are pending criminal cases involving the same set of facts.

The trial court denied petitioners' objection and motion to cancel or suspend the deposition. The court also struck out the answer filed by petitioners for their refusal to be sworn, declared them in default, and allowed respondents to present their evidence ex parte.

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court's orders. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and upheld the trial court's orders.

Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court erred in allowing the deposition and in denying their motions.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the taking of the depositions of the petitioners, despite their claim that it would violate their right against self-incrimination.

  2. Whether the petitioners, as accused in criminal cases, can refuse to testify or have their depositions taken in a civil case.

  3. Whether the right to refuse to take the witness stand applies to parties in civil actions which are criminal in nature.

  4. Whether the taking of oral depositions should be allowed without leave of court when no answer has been served and the issues have not yet been joined.

  5. Whether the petitioner can take the deposition of the respondents.

  6. Whether leave of court is required to take the deposition after an answer to the complaint has been served.

RULING:

  1. The trial court did not err in allowing the taking of the depositions of the petitioners. The right against self-incrimination only applies when a specific incriminatory question is actually put to the witness. It does not give the witness the right to disregard a subpoena or refuse to testify altogether.

  2. As accused in criminal cases, the petitioners have the right to refuse to testify altogether. They cannot be compelled to be witnesses against themselves in any proceeding, whether civil, criminal, or administrative.

  3. The right to refuse to take the witness stand does not generally apply to parties in administrative cases or proceedings. However, this exception applies to parties in civil actions that are criminal in nature. In this case, since the suit is civil in nature, the petitioners cannot refuse to take the witness stand unless incriminating questions are actually asked of them.

  4. Once an answer has been served, the testimony of a person, whether a party or not, may be taken by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories. The fact that the answers filed by petitioners were made ex abudanti cautela does not exempt them from the requirement of serving an answer. Their answers contain their respective defenses and therefore qualify as valid answers. The issues of the case have been joined when the answers were filed, and the deposition can be authorized under Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

  5. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The right against self-incrimination secures to a witness, whether a party or not, the right to refuse to answer any particular incriminatory question.

  • The right against self-incrimination does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena or refuse to testify altogether.

  • As accused in criminal cases, a person has the right to refuse to testify or produce evidence, even if subpoenaed or ordered by the court. They cannot be compelled to be witnesses against themselves.

  • The right to refuse to take the witness stand only applies to accused in criminal cases, and parties in administrative cases or proceedings who are facing incriminating questions.

  • The right to refuse to take the witness stand can also apply to parties in civil actions that are criminal in nature.

  • Once an answer has been served, the testimony of a person, whether a party or not, may be taken by deposition.

  • An answer filed ex abudanti cautela is still considered a valid answer and does not exempt the filing party from the requirement of serving an answer.

  • The taking of a deposition may be allowed before filing an action pursuant to Section 15, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court.

  • The taking of a deposition may also be allowed without leave of court after an answer to the complaint has been served.