In Re: Petition for Cancellation and Correction of Entries in the Record of Birth
Emma K. Lee vs. Court of Appeals, Rita K. Lee, Leoncio K. Lee, Lucia K. Lee-Ong, Julian K. Lee, Martin K. Lee, Rosa Lee-Vanderlek, Melody Lee-Chin, Henry K. Lee, Natividad Lee-Miguel, Victoriano K. Lee, and Thomas K. Lee, represented by Rita K. Lee, as Attotney-in-Fact
G.R. No. 177861, July 13, 2010
625 SCRA 66
FACTS:
Spouses Lee Tek Sheng (Lee) and Keh Shiok Cheng (Keh) had 11 children, herein respondents. Lee had a relation with another woman named Tiu Chuan (Tiu).
Shortly after their mother died in 1989, respondents learned that Tiu’s children with their father (collectively, the Lee’s other children) claimed that they, too, were children of Lee and Keh. The respondents requested the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to investigate the matter. The NBI found that the hospital records of Lee’s other children, Keh’s declared age did not coincide with her actual age when she supposedly gave birth to such other children.
The respondents, children of Lee and Keh, filed two separate petitions, one of them in Special Proceeding, for the deletion from the certificate of live birth of the petitioner Emma Lee, one of Lee’s other children, the name Keh and replace the same with the name Tiu to indicate her true mother’s name.
The respondents filed with the RTC an ex parte request for the issuance of a subpoena ad testificandum to compel Tiu, Emma Lee’s presumed mother, to testify in the case. The RTC granted the motion but Tiu moved to quash the subpoena, claiming that it was oppressive and violative of the rule on parental privilege, she being Emma Lee’s stepmother.
RTC’s decison: quashed the subpoena it issued for being unreasonable and oppressive considering that Tiu was already very old and that the obvious object of the subpoena was to badger her into admitting that she was Emma Lee’s mother.
CA’s decision: set aside RTC’s decision and ruled that only a subpoena duces tecum, not a subpoena ad testificandum, may be quashed for being oppressive or unreasonable under Section 4, Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
ISSUES:
1. Can parental and filial privilege be invoked by a stepdaughter or a stepparent?
2. Are the grounds “unreasonable and oppressive” proper for quashing a subpoena ad testificandum?
RULING:
1.No. The privilege cannot be applied because the rule applies only to “direct” ascendants and descendants, a family tie connected by a common ancestry. A stepdaughter has no common ancestry by her stepmother as in the present case. The privilege provides that no person may be compelled to testify against his parents, other direct ascendants, children or other direct descendants. The direct line is either descending or ascending. The former unites the head of the family with those who descend from him. The latter binds a person with those from whom he descends.
2. No. These grounds are proper for subpoena ad duces tecum or for the production of documents and things in the possession of the witness. A subpoena duces tecum is a command that has a tendency to infringe on the right against invasion of privacy. Section 4, Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court may quash a subpoena duces tecum upon motion promptly made and, in any event, at or before the time specified therein if it is unreasonable and oppressive, or the relevancy of the books, documents or things does not appear, or if the person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued fails to advance the reasonable cost of the production thereof.
Moreover, the one claiming that a witness may be subjected to physical and emotional punishment if she were compelled at her age and condition to come to court to testify, must establish this claim to the satisfaction of the trial court. The trial court would have to determine if the witness’ current physical condition makes her fit to undergo the ordeal of coming to court and being questioned. If she is fit, she must obey the subpoena issued to her. One should not worry that the oral examination might subject a witness to badgering by adverse counsel because it is the trial court’s duty to protect every witness against oppressive behavior of an examiner and this is especially true where the witness is of advanced age.
Myline Cordial 
Leave a comment