University of the Philippines College of Law

Topic Physician-client privilege

Case No. G.R. No. 117740 / October 30, 1998
Case Name Gonzales v. CA
Ponente Romero, J.
Digester MSI / Group 3

Quick Facts
Cause of Action Certiorari of CA decision re: annulment of petitioners’ extra-
(Complaint/ Information) judicial partition of estate and heirs of Ricardo de Mesa Abad
Evidence in Question Affidavit of physician re Ricardo’s gonorrhea
How was it raised to the SC? Certiorari
Trial Court Decision In favor of respondents
Supreme Court Decisions In favor of respondents

RELEVANT FACTS

 On 18 April 1972, petitioners Carolina Abad Gonzales, Dolores de Mesa Abad and Cesar de Mesa Tioseco sought the
settlement of the intestate estate of their brother, Ricardo de Mesa Abad. They that they were the only heirs of their brother
as he had allegedly died a bachelor, leaving no descendants or ascendants, whether legitimate or illegitimate.
o Petitioners later amended their petition by alleging that the real properties listed as belonging to the decedent
were actually only administered by him and that the true owner was their late mother, Lucila de Mesa.
o The trial court appointed Cesar de Mesa Tioseco as administrator of the intestate estate of Ricardo de Mesa Abad.
Petitioners executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of their late mother Lucila de Mesa in their favor.
 On 07 July 1972, private respondents Honoria Empaynado, Cecilia Abad Empaynado, and Marian Abad Empaynado filed
a motion to set aside proceedings.
o They alleged that Honoria Empaynado had been the common-law wife of Ricardo Abad for twenty-seven (27)
years before his death, or from 1943 to 1971, and that during this period, their union had produced two (2)
children, Cecilia Abad Empaynado and Marian Abad Empaynado.
o They also disclosed the existence of Rosemarie Abad, a child allegedly fathered by Ricardo Abad with another
woman, Dolores Saracho.
o As the law awards the entire estate to the surviving children to the exclusion of collateral relatives, they charged
petitioners with deliberately concealing the existence of said children in order to deprive the latter of their rights
to the estate of Ricardo Abad.
 The lower court ruled in favor of herein respondents. The extra-judicial settlement was null and void.

ISSUE/S & RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N the three (3) YES. (Skip to “important part” below for evid-related discussion)
children were entitled  Yes. Evidence presented by private respondents overwhelmingly proved that they are
to inherit the acknowledged natural children of Ricardo Abad. They were able to prove that he
stated in his individual income tax returns as his legitimate dependent children,
Cecilia, Marian and Rosemarie Abad. He insured his daughters on a 20-year
endowment plan. He opened a trust fund account for his daughters.
 Finding that private respondents are the illegitimate children of Ricardo Abad,
petitioners should have been precluded from inheriting the estate of their brother on
the basis of the following Civil Code provisions:
o Art. 988. In the absence of legitimate descendants or ascendants, the
illegitimate children shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased.
 University of the Philippines College of Law

o Art. 1003. If there are no illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the

collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased in
accordance with the following articles.
 Petitioners contested the filiation of the children by submitting that the husband of
Honoria Empaynado, Jose Libunao, was still alive when Cecilia and Marian Abad
were born. It was undisputed that prior to her relationship with Ricardo Abad,
Honoria Empaynado was married to Jose Libunao. But while private respondents
claim that Jose Libunao died in 1943, petitioners claim that the latter died sometime
in 1971.
o Basically, if Jose was still alive in 1971, then that would mean he was still
married to Honoria at that time, giving rise to the presumption that Cecilia
and Marian were not children od Ricardo Abad.
o The evidence presented by petitioners to prove that Jose Libunao died in
1971 was inconclusive. The evidence presented was Angelita Libunao’s
(Honororia’s daughter with Jose) enrolment form from Mapua wherein
there was failure to indicate that Jose was “deceased”. Cesar Libunao’s
enrolment form was also presented on the same light.
o Such proof did not necessarily prove that said parent was still living during
the time the form was being accomplished. His death certificate would have
been the best proof of his death.

 [IMPORTANT PART] Petitioners also presented the affidavit of Dr. Pedro Arenas,
Ricardo’s physician. The doctor declared that in 1935, he had examined Ricardo and
found him to be infected with gonorrhea. As a consequence, Ricardo had become
sterile. Respondents objected that this is privileged communication.
 The rule on confidential communications between physician and patient requires
that:
o a) the action in which the advice or treatment given or any information is to
be used is a civil case;
o b) the relation of physician and patient existed between the person claiming
the privilege or his legal representative and the physician;
o c) the advice or treatment given by him or any information was acquired by
the physician while professionally attending the patient;
o d) the information was necessary for the performance of his professional
duty; and
o e) the disclosure of the information would tend to blacken the reputation of
the patient
 Petitioners do not dispute that the affidavit meets the first four requisites. However,
as regards the last requisite, they argue that the finding of Ricardo’s sterility does not
blacken his reputation. This Court holds otherwise.
o Given that society holds virility at a premium, sterility alone, without the
attendant embarrassment of contracting a sexually-transmitted disease,
would be sufficient to blacken the reputation of any patient. We thus hold
the affidavit inadmissible in evidence. And the same remains inadmissible
in evidence, notwithstanding the death of Ricardo Abad.

RULING

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
No. 30184 dated October 19, 1994 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the affirmance of the Order dated March 21,
1975 denying the appeal of Dolores de Mesa Abad and Cesar de Mesa Tioseco for being filed out of time is SET ASIDE. Costs
against petitioners.