ARTURO PELAYO VS.

MARCELO LAURON

G.R. NO. L-4089 12 PHIL. 453

TORRES, J.:

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. Escaño, 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.