Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    Zulueta V Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    trishortiz
    Cecilia forcibly took documents from her husband Alfredo's clinic to use as evidence against him in legal proceedings. Alfredo sued Cecilia to recover the documents. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling in favor of Alfredo. The Supreme Court then ruled that the documents were inadmissible in evidence as they violated the constitutional right to privacy. Privacy of communication is protected even between spouses, and one spouse is not justified in ransacking the personal effects of the other to find evidence of infidelity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Zulueta V Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    trishortiz
    50 views2 pages
    Cecilia forcibly took documents from her husband Alfredo's clinic to use as evidence against him in legal proceedings. Alfredo sued Cecilia to recover the documents. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling in favor of Alfredo. The Supreme Court then ruled that the documents were inadmissible in evidence as they violated the constitutional right to privacy. Privacy of communication is protected even between spouses, and one spouse is not justified in ransacking the personal effects of the other to find evidence of infidelity.

    Original Description:

    Zulueta v Court of Appeals

    Original Title

    Zulueta v Court of Appeals

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cecilia forcibly took documents from her husband Alfredo's clinic to use as evidence against him in legal proceedings. Alfredo sued Cecilia to recover the documents. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling in favor of Alfredo. The Supreme Court then ruled that the documents were inadmissible in evidence as they violated the constitutional right to privacy. Privacy of communication is protected even between spouses, and one spouse is not justified in ransacking the personal effects of the other to find evidence of infidelity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    50 views2 pages

    Zulueta V Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    trishortiz
    Cecilia forcibly took documents from her husband Alfredo's clinic to use as evidence against him in legal proceedings. Alfredo sued Cecilia to recover the documents. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling in favor of Alfredo. The Supreme Court then ruled that the documents were inadmissible in evidence as they violated the constitutional right to privacy. Privacy of communication is protected even between spouses, and one spouse is not justified in ransacking the personal effects of the other to find evidence of infidelity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    CECILIA ZULUETA, petitioner, vs.

    COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO MARTIN,


    respondents.
    G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996
    FACTS: Petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals which
    affirmed the decision of the trial court.
    Cecilia is the wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin. On March 26, 1982, petitioner
    entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the presence of her
    mother, a driver and private respondents secretary, forcibly opened the drawers and
    cabinet in her husbands clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private
    correspondence between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, greeting cards,
    cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martins passport, and photographs. The documents and
    papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for legal separation and for
    disqualification from the practice of medicine which petitioner had filed against her
    husband.
    Alfredo thus filed an action for the recovery of the documents and papers and damages
    against Cecilia before the trial court. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of
    Alfredo. Cecilia and her attorneys and representatives were enjoined from using or
    submitting/admitting as evidence the documents and papers in question. On appeal,
    the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. Hence this
    petition.
    Petitioners contention In Alfredo Martin v. Alfonso Felix, Jr., this Court ruled that the
    documents and papers (marked as Annexes A-1 to J-7 of respondents comment in that
    case) were admissible in evidence and, therefore, their use by petitioners attorney,
    Alfonso Felix, Jr., did not constitute malpractice or gross misconduct. For this reason it is
    contended that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the trial court
    instead of dismissing private respondents complaint.
    ISSUE: Whether the documents and papers are admissible in evidence.
    RULING: No. Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence.
    The constitutional injunction declaring the privacy of communication and
    correspondence [to be] inviolable is no less applicable simply because it is the wife
    (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husbands infidelity) who is the party against
    whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the
    prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a lawful order [from a] court or when public
    safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. Any violation of this provision
    renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
    The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the
    drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of
    marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or
    his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to
    him or to her.
    The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making it
    privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the
    consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists. Neither may be examined
    without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one

    from the other during the marriage, save for specified exceptions. But one thing is
    freedom of communication; quite another is a compulsion for each one to share what
    one knows with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each
    owes to the other.
    Petition DENIED.

    You might also like