Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    Cabrera, Case 4

    Uploaded by

    Jordan Cabrera
    This case involves a wife, Cecilia Zulueta, who forcibly took 157 documents from her husband Alfredo Martin's clinic without his consent, including private correspondence and medical records. Martin filed a case to recover the documents. The trial court ordered Zulueta to return the documents and pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, finding the documents were taken without consent. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, upholding the right to privacy and finding the documents were improperly taken without consent.

    Copyright:

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

    Cabrera, Case 4

    Uploaded by

    Jordan Cabrera
    18 views2 pages
    This case involves a wife, Cecilia Zulueta, who forcibly took 157 documents from her husband Alfredo Martin's clinic without his consent, including private correspondence and medical records. Martin filed a case to recover the documents. The trial court ordered Zulueta to return the documents and pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, finding the documents were taken without consent. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, upholding the right to privacy and finding the documents were improperly taken without consent.

    Original Description:

    PBMEO VS PBM

    Original Title

    Cabrera,case-4

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a wife, Cecilia Zulueta, who forcibly took 157 documents from her husband Alfredo Martin's clinic without his consent, including private correspondence and medical records. Martin filed a case to recover the documents. The trial court ordered Zulueta to return the documents and pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, finding the documents were taken without consent. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, upholding the right to privacy and finding the documents were improperly taken without consent.

    Copyright:

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

    Cabrera, Case 4

    Uploaded by

    Jordan Cabrera
    This case involves a wife, Cecilia Zulueta, who forcibly took 157 documents from her husband Alfredo Martin's clinic without his consent, including private correspondence and medical records. Martin filed a case to recover the documents. The trial court ordered Zulueta to return the documents and pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, finding the documents were taken without consent. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, upholding the right to privacy and finding the documents were improperly taken without consent.

    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

    Cabrera, Jordan S.

    21-15-178

    BsCrim-24 Human Rights


    Education

    CECILIA ZULUETA vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO MARTIN, G.R. No. 107383 (February 20, 1996)

    PONENTE

    MENDOZA, J.:

    SYNOPSIS

    This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming the decision of the Regional
    Trial Court of Manila (Branch X) which ordered petitioner to return documents and papers taken by her
    from private respondent's clinic without the latter's knowledge and consent.

    FACTS

     Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta 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 respondent's secretary, forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in
    her husband's clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private correspondence between Dr.
    Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martin's
    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.

    ISSUES

     Whether or not the documents admissible as evidence in administrative case.

    RULING

    Dr. Martin brought this action below for recovery of the documents and papers and for damages against
    petitioner. The case was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch X, which, after trial,
    rendered judgment for private respondent, Dr. Alfredo Martin, declaring him "the capital/exclusive
    owner of the properties described in paragraph 3 of plaintiff's Complaint or those further described in
    the Motion to Return and Suppress" and ordering Cecilia Zulueta and any person acting in her behalf to a
    immediately return the properties to Dr. Martin and to pay him P5,000.00, as nominal damages;
    P5,000.00, as moral damages and attorney's fees; and to pay the costs of the suit. The writ of preliminary
    injunction earlier issued was made final and petitioner Cecilia Zulueta 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.

    WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit.

    DOCTRINES

     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 ensures 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.6 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.7 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.

    You might also like