GR 1438; (March, 1904) (Digest)
G.R. No. 1438 : March 30, 1904
PETRONILA SALONGA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANUEL CONCEPCION, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
Petronila Salonga filed a complaint against Manuel Concepcion. To secure Concepcion’s arrest in connection with the suit, Salonga presented two sureties who bound themselves in solidum with her to pay costs and damages if the arrest was later adjudged wrongful. In his answer, Concepcion alleged the arrest was illegal and claimed damages. He included a counterclaim against both Salonga and her sureties for these damages. The sureties demurred, arguing no action could lie against them until a judgment for damages was first rendered against the principal plaintiff, Salonga. The trial court sustained the demurrer. During trial, the court also excluded the testimony of Salonga’s husband under the marital disqualification rule and excluded certain pawn tickets offered by Concepcion to impeach Salonga’s claim about jewelry and support his counterclaim. Concepcion appealed.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the sureties’ demurrer to the counterclaim.
2. Whether the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of the plaintiff’s husband.
3. Whether the trial court erred in excluding the pawn tickets offered in evidence by the defendant.
RULING:
1. No, the trial court did not err in sustaining the demurrer. The sureties’ obligation was contingent upon a final adjudication that the arrest was wrongful. Since the counterclaim did not allege that the order of arrest had been vacated prior to its filing, it failed to state a cause of action against the sureties. An action for damages against them could only arise after such a determination was made.
2. No, the trial court did not err in excluding the husband’s testimony. The ruling was correct under Article 383 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prohibited a husband from being examined for or against his wife without her consent.
3. Yes, the trial court erred in excluding the pawn tickets. The pawn tickets were material and competent evidence. They were offered to prove that some of the jewelry Salonga claimed to have pledged to Concepcion were actually in pawnshops at the relevant time, thereby contradicting her version of events and supporting Concepcion’s defense and counterclaim. Their exclusion was prejudicial error.
DISPOSITIVE:
The judgment of the lower court is set aside. The case is remanded for a new trial with instructions to admit the pawn tickets in evidence. No costs are awarded.