G.R. No. 107383 February 20, Dr.

Martin brought this action below

1996 for recovery of the documents and
papers and for damages against
CECILIA ZULUETA, petitioner, petitioner. The case was filed with the
vs. Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch X, which, after trial, rendered
COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO judgment for private respondent, Dr.
MARTIN, respondents. Alfredo Martin, declaring him "the
capital/exclusive owner of the
DECISION properties described in paragraph 3 of
plaintiff's Complaint or those further
MENDOZA, J.:
described in the Motion to Return and
This is a petition to review the Suppress" and ordering Cecilia
decision of the Court of Appeals, Zulueta and any person acting in her
affirming the decision of the Regional behalf to a immediately return the
Trial Court of Manila (Branch X) properties to Dr. Martin and to pay
which ordered petitioner to return him P5,000.00, as nominal damages;
documents and papers taken by her P5,000.00, as moral damages and
from private respondent's clinic attorney's fees; and to pay the costs of
without the latter's knowledge and the suit. The writ of preliminary
consent. injunction earlier issued was made
final and petitioner Cecilia Zulueta
The facts are as follows: and her attorneys and representatives
were enjoined from "using or
Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife
submitting/admitting as evidence" the
of private respondent Alfredo Martin.
documents and papers in question. On
On March 26, 1982, petitioner entered
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the clinic of her husband, a doctor of
the decision of the Regional Trial
medicine, and in the presence of her
Court. Hence this petition.
mother, a driver and private
respondent's secretary, forcibly opened There is no question that the
the drawers and cabinet in her documents and papers in question
husband's clinic and took 157 belong to private respondent, Dr.
documents consisting of private Alfredo Martin, and that they were
correspondence between Dr. Martin taken by his wife, the herein
and his alleged paramours, greetings petitioner, without his knowledge and
cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. consent. For that reason, the trial
Martin's passport, and photographs. court declared the documents and
The documents and papers were papers to be properties of private
seized for use in evidence in a case for respondent, ordered petitioner to
legal separation and for return them to private respondent and
disqualification from the practice of enjoined her from using them in
medicine which petitioner had filed evidence. In appealing from the
against her husband. decision of the Court of Appeals
affirming the trial court's decision,
petitioner's only ground is that in restraining order on aforesaid date
Alfredo Martin v. Alfonso Felix, Jr.,1 which order temporarily set aside the
this Court ruled that the documents order of the trial court. Hence, during
and papers (marked as Annexes A-1 to the enforceability of this Court's order,
J-7 of respondent's comment in that respondent's request for petitioner to
case) were admissible in evidence and, admit the genuineness and
therefore, their use by petitioner's authenticity of the subject annexes
attorney, Alfonso Felix did not cannot be looked upon as malpractice.
constitute malpractice or gross Notably, petitioner Dr. Martin finally
misconduct, For this reason it is admitted the truth and authenticity of
contended that the Court of Appeals the questioned annexes, At that point
erred in affirming the decision of the in time, would it have been
trial court instead of dismissing malpractice for respondent to use
private respondent's complaint. petitioner's admission as evidence
against him in the legal separation
Petitioner's contention has no merit. case pending in the Regional Trial
The case against Atty. Felix, Jr. was Court of Makati? Respondent submits
for disbarment. Among other things, it is not malpractice.
private respondent, Dr. Alfredo
Martin, as complainant in that case, Significantly, petitioner's admission
charged that in using the documents was done not thru his counsel but by
in evidence, Atty. Felix, Jr. committed Dr. Martin himself under oath, Such
malpractice or gross misconduct verified admission constitutes an
because of the injunctive order of the affidavit, and, therefore, receivable in
trial court. In dismissing the evidence against him. Petitioner
complaint against Atty. Felix, Jr., this became bound by his admission. For
Court took note of the following Cecilia to avail herself of her
defense of Atty. Felix; Jr. which it husband's admission and use the same
found to be "impressed with merit:"2 in her action for legal separation
cannot be treated as malpractice.
On the alleged malpractice or gross
misconduct of respondent [Alfonso Thus, the acquittal of Atty. Felix, Jr.
Felix, Jr.], he maintains that: in the administrative case amounts to
no more than a declaration that his
.... use of the documents and papers for
4. When respondent refiled Cecilia's the purpose of securing Dr. Martin's
case for legal separation before the admission as to their genuiness and
Pasig Regional Trial Court, there was authenticity did not constitute a
admittedly an order of the Manila violation of the injunctive order of the
Regional Trial Court prohibiting trial court. By no means does the
Cecilia from using the documents decision in that case establish the
Annex "A-1 to J-7." On September 6, admissibility of the documents and
1983, however having appealed the papers in question.
said order to this Court on a petition
for certiorari, this Court issued a
It cannot be overemphasized that if individual and the constitutional
Atty. Felix, Jr. was acquitted of the protection is ever available to him or
charge of violating the writ of to her.
preliminary injunction issued by the
trial court, it was only because, at the The law insures absolute freedom of
time he used the documents and communication between the spouses
papers, enforcement of the order of the by making it privileged. Neither
trial court was temporarily restrained husband nor wife may testify for or
by this Court. The TRO issued by this against the other without the consent
Court was eventually lifted as the of the affected spouse while the
petition for certiorari filed by marriage subsists.6 Neither may be
petitioner against the trial court's examined without the consent of the
order was dismissed and, therefore, other as to any communication
the prohibition against the further use received in confidence by one from the
of the documents and papers became other during the marriage, save for
effective again. specified exceptions.7 But one thing is
freedom of communication; quite
Indeed the documents and papers in another is a compulsion for each one to
question are inadmissible in evidence. share what one knows with the other.
The constitutional injunction And this has nothing to do with the
declaring "the privacy of duty of fidelity that each owes to the
communication and correspondence [to other.
be] inviolable"3 is no less applicable
simply because it is the wife (who WHEREFORE, the petition for review
thinks herself aggrieved by her is DENIED for lack of merit.
husband's infidelity) who is the party SO ORDERED.
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."4 Any violation of
this provision renders the evidence
obtained inadmissible "for any
purpose in any proceeding." 5

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