Geluz vs CA

TITLE: Geluz vs CA

CITATION: 2 SCRA 801

FACTS:

Nita Villanueva, the wife of Oscar lazo, respondent, came to know Antonio Geluz, the petitioner and physician, through her aunt Paula Yambot.  Nita became pregnant some time in 1950 before she and Oscar were legally married.  As advised by her aunt and to conceal it from her parents, she decided to have it aborted by Geluz.  She had her pregnancy aborted again on October 1953 since she found it inconvenient as she was employed at COMELEC.  After two years, on February 21, 1955, she again became pregnant and was accompanied by her sister Purificacion and the latter’s daughter Lucida at Geluz’ clinic at Carriedo and P. Gomez Street.  Oscar at this time was in the province of Cagayan campaigning for his election to the provincial board.  He doesn’t have any idea nor given his consent on the abortion.

ISSUE: Whether husband of a woman, who voluntarily procured her abortion, could recover damages from the physician who caused the same.

HELD:

The Supreme Court believed that the minimum award fixed at P3,000 for the death of a person does not cover cases of an unborn fetus that is not endowed with personality which trial court and Court of Appeals predicated.

Both trial court and CA wasn’t able to find any basis for an award of moral damages evidently because Oscar’s indifference to the previous abortions of Nita clearly indicates he was unconcerned with the frustration of his parental affections.  Instead of filing an administrative or criminal case against Geluz, he turned his wife’s indiscretion to personal profit and filed a civil action for damages of which not only he but, including his wife would be the beneficiaries.  It shows that he’s after obtaining a large money payment since he sued Geluz for P50,000 damages and P3,000 attorney’s fees that serves as indemnity claim, which under the circumstances was clearly exaggerated.