TodayisTuesday,November19,2013

Search

RepublicofthePhilippines SUPREMECOURT Manila ENBANC G.R.No.L4089January12,1909 ARTUROPELAYO,plaintiffappellant, vs. MARCELOLAURON,ETAL.,defendantsappellees. J.H.Junquera,forappellant. FilemonSotto,forappellee. TORRES,J.: On the 23rd of November, 1906, Arturo Pelayo, a physician residing in Cebu, filed a complaint against Marcelo LauronandJuanaAbellasettingforththatonoraboutthe13thofOctoberofsaidyear,atnight,theplaintiffwas calledtothehouseofthedefendants,situatedinSanNicolas,andthatuponarrivalhewasrequestedbythemto rendermedicalassistancetotheirdaughterinlawwhowasabouttogivebirthtoachildthattherefore,andafter consultationwiththeattendingphysician,Dr.Escao,itwasfoundnecessary,onaccountofthedifficultbirth,to removethefetusbymeansofforcepswhichoperationwasperformedbytheplaintiff,whoalsohadtoremovethe afterbirth,inwhichserviceshewasoccupieduntilthefollowingmorning,andthatafterwards,onthesameday,he visited the patient several times that the just and equitable value of the services rendered by him was P500, whichthedefendantsrefusetopaywithoutalleginganygoodreasonthereforthatforsaidreasonheprayedthat thejudgmentbeenteredinhisfavorasagainstthedefendants,oranyofthem,forthesumofP500andcosts, togetherwithanyotherreliefthatmightbedeemedproper. Inanswertothecomplaintcounselforthedefendantsdeniedalloftheallegationthereincontainedandalleged asaspecialdefense,thattheirdaughterinlawhaddiedinconsequenceofthesaidchildbirth,andthatwhenshe wasaliveshelivedwithherhusbandindependentlyandinaseparatehousewithoutanyrelationwhateverwith them, and that, if on the day when she gave birth she was in the house of the defendants, her stay their was accidental and due to fortuitous circumstances therefore, he prayed that the defendants be absolved of the complaintwithcostsagainsttheplaintiff. The plaintiff demurred to the above answer, and the court below sustained the demurrer, directing the defendants,onthe23rdofJanuary,1907,toamendtheiranswer.Incompliancewiththisorderthedefendants presented,onthesamedate,theiramendedanswer,denyingeachandeveryoneoftheallegationscontainedin thecomplaint,andrequestingthatthesamebedismissedwithcosts. Asaresultoftheevidenceadducedbybothparties,judgmentwasenteredbythecourtbelowonthe5thofApril, 1907, whereby the defendants were absolved from the former complaint, on account of the lack of sufficient evidencetoestablisharightofactionagainstthedefendants,withcostsagainsttheplaintiff,whoexceptedtothe said judgment and in addition moved for a new trial on the ground that the judgment was contrary to law the motionwasoverruledandtheplaintiffexceptedandinduecoursepresentedthecorrespondingbillofexceptions. Themotionofthedefendantsrequestingthatthedeclarationcontainedinthejudgmentthatthedefendantshad demandedtherefrom,forthereasonthat,accordingtotheevidence,nosuchrequesthadbeenmade,wasalso denied,andtothedecisionthedefendantsexcepted. Assumingthatitisarealfactofknowledgebythedefendantsthattheplaintiff,byvirtueofhavingbeensentforby theformer,attendedaphysicianandrenderedprofessionalservicestoadaughterinlawofthesaiddefendants duringadifficultandlaboriouschildbirth,inordertodecidetheclaimofthesaidphysicianregardingtherecovery ofhisfees,itbecomesnecessarytodecidewhoisboundtopaythebill,whetherthefatherandmotherinlawof thepatient,orthehusbandofthelatter. Accordingtoarticle1089oftheCivilCode,obligationsarecreatedbylaw,bycontracts,byquasicontracts,and byillicitactsandomissionsorbythoseinwhichanykindoffaultornegligenceoccurs.

Obligationsarisingfromlawarenotpresumed.Thoseexpresslydeterminedinthecodeorinspeciallaws,etc., are the only demandable ones. Obligations arising from contracts have legal force between the contracting partiesandmustbefulfilledinaccordancewiththeirstipulations.(Arts.1090and1091.) The rendering of medical assistance in case of illness is comprised among the mutual obligations to which the spousesareboundbywayofmutualsupport.(Arts.142and143.) Ifeveryobligationconsistsingiving,doingornotdoingsomething(art.1088),andspousesaremutuallyboundto supporteachother,therecanbenoquestionbutthat,wheneitherofthembyreasonofillnessshouldbeinneed of medical assistance, the other is under the unavoidable obligation to furnish the necessary services of a physician in order that health may be restored, and he or she may be freed from the sickness by which life is jeopardizedthepartyboundtofurnishsuchsupportisthereforeliableforallexpenses,includingthefeesofthe medicalexpertforhisprofessionalservices.Thisliabilityoriginatesfromtheabovecitedmutualobligationwhich thelawhasexpresslyestablishedbetweenthemarriedcouple. In the face of the above legal precepts it is unquestionable that the person bound to pay the fees due to the plaintiff for the professional services that he rendered to the daughterinlaw of the defendants during her childbirth, is the husband of the patient and not her father and mother inlaw, the defendants herein. The fact that it was not the husband who called the plaintiff and requested his assistance for his wife is no bar to the fulfillmentofthesaidobligation,asthedefendants,inviewoftheimminentdanger,towhichthelifeofthepatient wasatthatmomentexposed,consideredthatmedicalassistancewasurgentlyneeded,andtheobligationofthe husband to furnish his wife in the indispensable services of a physician at such critical moments is specially establishedbythelaw,ashasbeenseen,andcompliancetherewithisunavoidabletherefore,theplaintiff,who believesthatheisentitledtorecoverhisfees,mustdirecthisactionagainstthehusbandwhoisunderobligation tofurnishmedicalassistancetohislawfulwifeinsuchanemergency. From the foregoing it may readily be understood that it was improper to have brought an action against the defendantssimplybecausetheywerethepartieswhocalledtheplaintiffandrequestedhimtoassistthepatient during her difficult confinement, and also, possibly, because they were her father and motherinlaw and the sicknessoccurredintheirhouse.Thedefendantswerenot,noraretheynow,underanyobligationbyvirtueof anylegalprovision,topaythefeesclaimed,norinconsequenceofanycontractenteredintobetweenthemand theplaintifffromwhichsuchobligationmighthavearisen. InapplyingtheprovisionsoftheCivilCodeinanactionforsupport,thesupremecourtofSpain,whilerecognizing thevalidityandefficiencyofacontracttofurnishsupportwhereinapersonboundhimselftosupportanotherwho was not his relative, established the rule that the law does impose the obligation to pay for the support of a stranger,butastheliabilityaroseoutofacontract,thestipulationsoftheagreementmustbeheld.(Decisionof May11,1897.) Within the meaning of the law, the father and motherinlaw are strangers with respect to the obligation that devolvesuponthehusbandtoprovidesupport,amongwhichisthefurnishingofmedicalassistancetohiswifeat the time of her confinement and, on the other hand, it does not appear that a contract existed between the defendantsandtheplaintiffphysician,forwhichreasonitisobviousthattheformercannotbecompelledtopay feeswhichtheyareundernoliabilitytopaybecauseitdoesnotappearthattheyconsentedtobindthemselves. The foregoing suffices to demonstrate that the first and second errors assigned to the judgment below are unfounded,because,iftheplaintiffhasnorightofactionagainstthedefendants,itisneedlesstodeclarewhether ornottheuseofforcepsisasurgicaloperation. Therefore,inviewoftheconsiderationhereinbeforesetforth,itisouropinionthatthejudgmentappealedfrom shouldbeaffirmedwiththecostsagainsttheappellant.Soordered. MapaandTracey,JJ.,concur. Arellano,C.J.,andCarson,J.,concursintheresult. Willard,J.,dissents.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation