Rosete v. Lim
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents Juliano and Lilia Lim filed a complaint for Annulment, Specific Performance with Damages against AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS), Espreme Realty and Development Corporation, Alfredo P. Rosete, Oscar P. Mapalo, Chito P. Rosete, Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), and the Register of Deeds of Mindoro Occidental. The complaint sought to annul a deed of sale involving certain parcels of land and to restore ownership and title to the respondents. Petitioners, along with other defendants, filed motions to dismiss, which were denied by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Procedural History: Following the denial of their motions to dismiss and for reconsideration, petitioners filed petitions for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals, challenging the RTC's orders. Despite these appeals, the RTC proceeded with the case. Respondents then filed a notice to take the deposition upon oral examination of petitioners Oscar Mapalo and Chito P. Rosete. Petitioners objected, citing the pendency of their appeals and the potential violation of their right against self-incrimination due to parallel criminal cases involving the same facts. The RTC denied their objections and allowed the deposition. Subsequently, the RTC ordered the striking out of petitioners' answer, declared them in default, and allowed the presentation of evidence ex-parte. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 45400, upheld the RTC's orders allowing the deposition, prompting the present petition. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the trial court erred in allowing the deposition of Oscar Mapalo and Chito Rosete. They contend that the trial court gravely abused its discretion by not recognizing their constitutional right against self-incrimination, given the pendency of criminal cases involving the same facts, and by allowing the deposition without leave of court when issues had not yet been joined. Petitioners assert that their answers, filed ex abundanti cautela, should not be considered as joining the issues, and that the right against self-incrimination should permit them to refuse to take the witness stand altogether, not just refuse to answer specific incriminating questions, due to the nature of the parallel criminal proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring that the constitutional right against self-incrimination of petitioners Oscar Mapalo and Chito Rosete would not be violated by the taking of their deposition in the civil case, despite their being respondents in related criminal cases. Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring that the notice to take deposition upon oral examination need not be with leave of court because an answer 'ex abudanti cautela' had been filed, and that joinder of issues is not required for the availment of Section 1, Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the trial court's orders allowing the taking of the deposition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Right Against Self-Incrimination: The Court reiterated that the right against self-incrimination, enshrined in Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, secures to a witness the right to refuse to answer any particular incriminatory question that has a tendency to incriminate him for some crime. However, this right can only be claimed when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness; it does not give a witness the right to refuse to appear or to testify altogether. The Court clarified that only an accused in a criminal case can refuse outright to take the witness stand. Parties in civil cases are treated as ordinary witnesses and can only invoke the privilege against self-incrimination on a question-by-question basis. The fact that criminal cases are pending involving the same set of facts does not alter the nature of the civil case, and thus, petitioners, as parties in a civil suit, cannot refuse to take the witness stand and give their depositions. They can only refuse to answer specific questions that are incriminating. On the Requirement of Leave of Court and Joinder of Issues: The Court found petitioners' contention that the deposition could not be taken without leave of court because their answers were filed 'ex abudanti cautela' to be untenable. Section 1 of Rule 24 of the Revised Rules of Court (now Section 1, Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure) clearly states that a deposition pending action may be taken without leave of court once an answer has been served. The Court emphasized that an answer filed 'ex abudanti cautela' is still an answer, containing defenses, and its filing signifies that the issues have been joined. The Court explained that issues are joined when all parties have pleaded their respective theories, and the terms of the dispute are plain before the court. In this case, the filing of answers by all defendants, including the petitioners, meant that the issues were joined, thereby allowing the deposition to be taken without leave of court.
Main Doctrine
A party in a civil case, who is not an accused in a related criminal case, can only invoke the right against self-incrimination when a specific incriminating question is propounded during the deposition, and cannot refuse to take the witness stand altogether. Furthermore, a deposition upon oral examination may be taken without leave of court once an answer, even if filed 'ex abudanti cautela', has been served.