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 aunts 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 defendants 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 wifes 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.