CASE DIGEST: GELUZ V.

CA
Published by paul on August 12, 2013 |

ANTONIO GELUZ, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and

OSCAR LAZO, respondents.
No. L-16439. July 20, 1961

Facts:

Nita Villanueva came to know Geluz when she was pregnant by her husband before
their marriage. Geluz performed an abortion on Nita Villanueva. After the latter’s
marriage, she again became pregnant and since she was employed in the Commission on
Elections, the pregnancy was inconvenient and she had herself aborted again by Geluz. In
less than two years, she again became pregnant and had her two-month old fetus aborted
by Geluz for a sum of fifty pesos. Nita’s husband was then campaigning for
his election and was aware and did not give consent to the abortion. He filed for an action
for the award of damages. The trial court and Court of Appeals predicated the award of
damages in the sum of three thousand pesos for moral damages.

Issue:

Whether or not the spouses Lazo could recover damages from the physician who caused
the same.

Held:

The petition is meritorious.

The minimum award for the death of a person does not cover the case of an
unborn fetus that is not endowed with personality and incapable of having rights and
obligations. Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or death
pertains primarily to the injured, no such right of action could derivatively accrue to the
parents or heirs of an unborn child. The damages which the parents of an unborn child
can recover are limited to the moral damages for the illegal arrest of the
normal development of the fetus, on account of distress and anguish attendantto its loss,
and the disappointment of their parental expectations. In this case, however, the appellee
was indifferent to the previous abortions of his wife, clearly indicative that he was
unconcerned with the frustration of his parental hopes and expectations.

The decision is reversed and the complaint ordered is dismissed.

Geluz vs CATITLE: Geluz vs CACITATION: 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 byher 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 andthe
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 doesnt have any idea nor given his consent on the abortion.

ISSUE: Whether husband of a woman, who voluntarily procured her abortion,

couldrecover damages from the physician who caused the same.

HELD:The Supreme Court believed that the minimum award fixed at P3,000 for the
deathof 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 wasnt
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.