**Rosete et al. vs. Lim et al., (2007)**
### Facts:
The case originates from a complaint filed by Juliano Lim and Lilia Lim against the AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS), Espreme Realty and Development Corporation, among others, including Alfredo P. Rosete, Maj. Oscar Mapalo, and Chito P. Rosete, for Annulment, Specific Performance with Damages. The plaintiffs sought to annul certain deeds of sale and restore ownership of lands to them. Upon this complaint, petitioners filed motions to dismiss, which were denied by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. Their subsequent Motions for Reconsideration were likewise denied. Challenge through Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition against these orders were filed in the Court of Appeals but were dismissed. Despite the dismissal and while their appeals were pending, petitioners filed their Answers as a precaution. The respondents then filed a Notice to Take Deposition Upon Oral Examination of the petitioners, who objected, partly on grounds of self-incrimination due to parallel criminal proceedings against them. The RTC allowed the depositions, and motions to reconsider were denied. Petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (CA-G.R. SP No. 45400) with the Court of Appeals against these orders, which was dismissed, leading to the current petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the appellate court’s decision.
### Issues:
1. Whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in allowing the depositions of Oscar Mapalo and Chito Rosete despite their invocation of the right against self-incrimination.
2. Whether an answer filed “ex abudanti cautela” pending resolution of a Petition for Certiorari suffices to serve an answer under the Rules of Court, thus not requiring leave of court for depositions upon oral examination.
### Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, holding:
1. **Right Against Self-Incrimination**: The Court clarified that the privilege against self-incrimination can only be invoked for specific incriminating questions during testimony. It is not a blanket right to refuse to testify or be deposed. In civil proceedings, unlike in criminal cases where an accused can refuse to take the stand altogether, a party must testify but can invoke this right when an incriminating question is posed. The Court ruled that the RTC did not err in scheduling the depositions since the civil case did not partake of the nature of a criminal proceeding, and the petitioners could only claim the privilege against specific questions.
2. **Depositions Upon Oral Examination Without Leave of Court**: The Court found that the filing of an answer, even one made ex abudanti cautela, meets the requirement under the Rules of Court, allowing for depositions without leave of court. The phrase “ex abudanti cautela” signifies precautionary measures and does not diminish the legal effect of an answer as a pleading. Hence, the trial court was correct in allowing the depositions without leave, as answers had been effectively served, contrary to the petitioners’ contention.
### Doctrine:
The right against self-incrimination can only be claimed when a specific incriminatory question is put to a witness and does not extend to the right to refuse to testify or be deposed altogether in civil cases. The filing of an answer, even if labeled “ex abudanti cautela,” is considered an answer for the purposes of Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, allowing for depositions upon oral examination without leave of court after such an answer has been served.
### Class Notes:
– **Right Against Self-Incrimination**: Applicable in both criminal and civil cases but can only be invoked against specific incriminating questions.
– **Answer Ex Abudanti Cautela**: A precautionary answer filed in court proceedings is legally considered an answer, negating the need for leave of court for depositions upon oral examination once it has been filed.
– **Rule 23, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure**: Provides for taking depositions upon oral examination without court leave after an answer has been served.
### Historical Background:
This case reflects the procedural intricacies of the Philippine legal system, particularly the intersections between civil and criminal proceedings and the rights of parties and defendants, including the right against self-incrimination. It elucidates the balance between the necessity for discovery in civil cases and the protection against self-incrimination, providing clarity on procedural matters such as depositions and the effect of filing certain types of answers.
Leave a Reply