Pelayo vs. Lauron 12 Phil.

453 FACTS On November 23, 1906, a physician named Arturo Pelayo filed a complaint against Marelo Lauron and Juana Abellana. On the night of October 13th of the same year, the plaintiffwas called to render medical assistance to the defendants daughter-in-law, who was about to gie birth. After the consultation of Dr. Escao, it was deemed that the operation was going to be difficult for child birth, but regardless, Dr. Pelayo proceeded with the job of operating on the subject and also removed the afterbirth. The operation went on until morning, and on the same day, visited several times and billed the defendants the just amount of P500 for the services rendered to which defendants refused to pay. In answer to the complaint, counsel for the defendants denied all of the allegation and alleged as a special defense, that their daughter-inlaw had died in consequence of the said childbirth, that when she was alive she lived with her husband independently and in a separate house without any relation whatever with them, and that, if on the day when she gave birth she was in the house of the defendants, her stay their was accidental and due to fortuitous circumstances. Therefore, he prayed that the defendants be absolved of the complaint with costs against the plaintiff. ISSUE Can the defendants be held liable to pay for the obligation? RULING No. According to article 1089 of the Civil Code, obligations are created by law, by contracts, by quasicontracts, and by illicit acts and omissions or by those in which any kind of fault or negligence occurs. Obligations arising from law are not presumed. Those expressly determined in the code or in special laws, etc., are the only demandable ones. Obligations arising from contracts have legal force between the contracting parties and must be fulfilled in accordance with their stipulations. (Arts. 1090 and 1091.) The rendering of medical assistance in case of illness was comprised among the mutual obligations to which the spouses were bound by way of mutual support. (Arts. 142 and 143.) If every obligation consists in giving, doing or not doing something (art. 1088), and spouses were mutually bound to support each other, there can be no question but that, when either of them by reason of illness should be in need of medical assistance, the other was under the unavoidable obligation to furnish the necessary services of a physician in order that health may be restored, and he or she may be freed from the sickness by which life is jeopardized. The party bound to furnish such support was therefore liable for all expenses, including the fees of the medical expert for hisprofessional services. In the face of the above legal precepts, it was unquestionable that the person bound to pay the fees due to the plaintiff for the professional services that he rendered to the daughter-in-law of the defendants during her childbirth, was the husband of the patient and not her father and motherin-law of the defendants herein.

Case Digest on PELAYO vs. LAURON (Mutual Support)Facts : Oct. 13, 1906, nighttime Arturo Pelayo, a physicianbased in Cebu, was called to the house of Marcelo Lauron & Juana Abella (defendants) in San Nicolas. Their daughter-in-law was about to give birth & they requested him to rendermedical assistance. Since it was a difficult birth, he had toperform a surgery to remove the fetus using forceps. He alsoremoved the afterbirth. He finished all of these until thefollowing morning. He visited the patient several times the following day. Just &equitable value for the services he rendered: P500.00. Withoutany good reason, defendants refused to pay said amount. Thushe filed a case praying for a judgment in his favor againstdefendants for the sum of P500.00 + costs along with otherrelief that may be deemed proper. The Defendants alleged that their daughter-in-law died inconsequence of the childbirth. Also, that their son & daughter-in-law lived independently & her giving birth in their house waso n l y a c c i d e n t a l . T h e y p r a ye d t h a t t h e y b e a b s o l v e d . C F I : Defendants abso lved due to lack of sufficient evidence toestablish right of action. ISSUE : WON the defendants are bound to pay the bill for theservices Pelayo has rendered. HELD : NO. CFI judgment affirmed. RATIO : Rendering of medical assistance in case of illness isamong the mutual obligations to which spouses are bound byway of mutual support. (Arts. 142 & 143, CC) The party boundto give support should therefore be liable for all the expensesincluding the fees of the physician. Thus, it is the husbands obligation to pay Pelayo and not the defendants. The husbandwould still be liable even if his parents were the one who called& requested for Pelayos assistance. The defendants are notunder any obligation to pay the fees claimed (An obligationaccording to CC Art. 1089 is created by law, contracts, quasi-contracts, & by illicit acts & omissions or by those in which anykind of fault/negligence occurs.). There was no contractbetween Pelayo & the defendants thus they cant be compelledto pay him.