Short answer. Yes. The rule lists among its exceptions a witness who is an adverse party, or an officer, director or managing agent of a corporation, partnership or association which is an adverse party. You may lead such a witness even though you called him.
What the law says
Of a witness who is an adverse party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation
Rule 132, Section 10 — Leading and misleading questions. Read the full provision →
The exception follows loyalty, not who called the witness
The general bar on leading questions rests on an assumption: that a party calls witnesses who are willing to help, so suggesting answers to them would simply put words in a friendly mouth. That assumption collapses when the witness is the opposing party, or someone who speaks for it. The rule recognises this by listing such a witness among the exceptions. What controls is where the witness's interest lies, not the procedural accident of which side called him to the stand.
How far the exception reaches
The rule does not stop at the adverse party personally. It extends to an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation, and the text carries the same treatment through to a partnership or association which is an adverse party. So suing a company does not leave you unable to examine effectively simply because the company itself cannot take the stand. The people through whom it acts, in the positions named, fall within the exception.
Note the positions the rule names
The categories listed are specific: officer, director, or managing agent. That wording is doing real work, because not every person employed by an adverse company is described by it. An employee with no such role is not obviously covered by this particular exception merely by working for the other side. Whether a given person falls within it is a question about their actual position and authority, and it is worth identifying before the examination rather than discovering mid-question.
A related rule on impeaching him
There is a second consequence worth knowing. The rule that a party may not impeach the credibility of the witness it presents is expressly made subject to the same categories — the adverse-party witness and the unwilling or hostile witness. So calling the other side's officer does not tie your hands in the way calling your own witness would. Note the limits that still apply: the ban on misleading questions has no exceptions at all, and it binds you here as much as anywhere. How best to use the latitude in a particular case is a matter of strategy, and worth planning with your lawyer in advance of the hearing.