Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Arturo Pelayo vs.

Marcelo Lauron
G.R. No. L-4089, January 12, 1909
12 Phil. 453
FACTS:
On or about October 13, 1906, the plaintiff Arturo Pelayo was called to the house of the defendants, Marcelo
Lauron and Juana Abella situated in San Nicolas, and that upon arrival he was requested by them to render
medical assistance to their daughter-in-law who was about to give birth to a child. After consultation with the
attending physician, Dr. Escao, the plaintiff found it necessary to remove the fetus by means of an
operation, in which service he was occupied until the following morning, and had visited the patient several
times. The equitable value of the services rendered by the plaintiff was P500.00, which the defendants
refused to pay. On November 23, 1906, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants and prayed that
the judgment be rendered in his favor as against the defendants, or any of them, for the sum of P500 and
costs, together with any other relief that may be deemed proper. In answer, the defendants denied all
allegations and alleged as a special defense, that their daughter-in-law died as a consequence of the said
childbirth, and when she was still alive she lived with her husband independently and in a separate house
and without any relation whatsoever with them, and on the day she gave birth she was in the house of the
defendants and her stay there was accidental and due to fortuitous circumstances. Thus, the defendants
prayed that they be absolved from the complaint with costs against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff demurred the answer and that the lower court sustained the demurrer directing the defendants
to amend their answer. In compliance, the defendants amended their answer denying each and every
allegation contained in the complaint. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants
absolving them from the complaint.
ISSUE:
The issue is whether or not the parents-in-law are under any obligation to pay the fees claimed by the
plaintiff.
HELD:
The defendants were not, nor are they now, under any obligation by virtue of any legal provision, to pay the
fees claimed, nor in consequence of any contract entered into between them and the plaintiff from which
such obligation might have arisen.
The rendering of medical assistance in case of illness is comprised among the mutual obligations to which
spouses are bound by way of mutual support. When either of them by reason of illness should be in need of
medical assistance, the other is under the unavoidable obligation to furnish the necessary services of a
physician in order that the health may be restored; the party bound to furnish such support is therefore,
liable for all the expenses, including the fees of the medical expert for his professional services. The liability
arises from the obligation, which the law has expressly established, between married couples. It is therefore
the husband of the patient who is bound to pay for the services of the plaintiff. The fact that it was not the
husband who called the plaintiff and requested the medical assistance for his wife is no bar to his fulfillment
of such obligation, as the defendants, in view of the imminent danger to which the life of the patient was at
that moment exposed, considered that the medical assistance was urgently needed. Therefore, plaintiff
should direct his action against the husband of the patient, and not against her parents-in-law.

Вам также может понравиться