Style of the Case: Geluz vs Court of Appeals

Court: Supreme Court

Judge: REYES, J.B.L., J Facts and Procedural History

Facts

● 1948- Nita Villanueva came to know the defendant (Antonio Geluz) for the first time-- through

her aunt Paula Yambot

● 1950- Nita became pregnant by her present husband before they were legally married. To

conceal her pregnancy from her parents, and also because of her aunt’s advice, she had an

abortion by the defendant

● October 1953- While employed in COMELEC, she got pregnant again. It became an

inconvenience so she got an abortion again.

● February 21, 1955- Together with her sister and her niece, they went to the defendant’s clinic

in Manila where they met the defendant and his wife. Nita had an abortion again for 50

Philippine pesos

● During this time, the plaintiff, Oscar Lazo, was campaigning in Cagayan. He did not know or

give consent to the abortion.

● The Court of Appeals and the trial court predicated the award of damages in the sum of

P3,000.06 upon the provisions of the initial paragraph of Article 2206 of the Civil Code of the

Philippines.

Procedural History

● Litigation was commenced in the Court of First Instance of Manila by respondent Oscar Lazo

against petitioner Antonio Geluz, a physician

● The trial court rendered judgment favor of plaintiff Lazo and against defendant Geluz,

ordering the latter to pay P3,000.00 as damages, P700.00 attorney's fees and the costs of the

suit.

● Geluz filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals Court of Appeals but the latter sustained the

award

Issues

● Whether or not the husband of a woman, who voluntarily procured her abortion, could

recover damages from physician who caused the same.

Judgement

The decision appealed from is reversed, and the complaint ordered dismissed.

Holding

● NO. The minimum award for the death of a person does not cover an unborn fetus. The

indifference of the appellee to his wife’s previous abortions indicates that he was

unconcerned with the frustrations of his parental hopes and affections. Even after learning of

the third abortion, the appellee does not seem to have taken interest in the administrative

and criminal cases against the appellant. His only concern appears to have been directed at

obtaining from the doctor a large money payment, since he sued for P50,000.00 damages and

P3,000.00 attorney's fees, an "indemnity" claim that, under the circumstances of record, was

clearly exaggerated.

Discussion

● It is unquestionable that the appellant's act in provoking the abortion of appellee's wife,

without medical necessity to warrant it, was a criminal and morally reprehensible act, that can

not be too severely condemned; and the consent of the woman or that of her husband does

not excuse it. But the immorality or illegality of the act does not justify an award of damage

that, under the circumstances on record, have no factual or legal basis.