Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

PELAYO VS. LAURON 12 Phil. 435

G.R. No. L-4089, January 12, 1909
Torres, J

FACTS
Dr. Arturo Pelayo, the plaintiff, a physician, was called by the defendants to perform medical
assistance to their daughter in law who was about to give birth. According to Dr. Escaño, their
daughter-in-law’s attending physician, childbirth will be difficult, but regardless, the plaintiff
continued operating the patient until morning the next day. After visiting the patient several
times, the plaintiff charged the defendants amounting to P500 for the services rendered, to which
the defendants refused to pay.
In response to the complaint, the defendants denied all the allegations provided by the
plaintiff. To contradict the allegation, the defendants claim that their daughter-in-law died due to
the said childbirth, and when she was alive, she lived independently with her husband without
any relation with them. During that day, her stay in their house was accidental due to fortuitous
circumstances. Therefore, the defendants demanded to be dismissed with costs.
As a result of the evidence provided by both parties, the lower court absolved the former
complaint due to the lack of sufficient evidence to establish the right of action against the
defendant. The defendants were dismissed with costs against the plaintiff, who believes that the
judgment was contrary to the law and requested for a new trial on the ground. Hence, this
petition is filed before the court.

ISSUES
Whether or not the defendants are liable for the said cost of the service rendered by the
plaintiff?

RULING
No. According to article 1089 of the Civil Code, obligations are created by law, by
contracts, by quasi-contracts, 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 is comprised among the mutual
obligations to which the spouses are 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
are 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 is 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 is therefore liable for all expenses, including the fees of the medical expert
for his professional services.
With the aforementioned provisions, it is clear that the father and mother-in-law are not
liable for their daughter-in-law's medical bills and that they, the plaintiff and defendant, have not
created a contract for the cost of services rendered. The husband is solely responsible for
providing support and is liable to pay his wife's medical aid and confinement fees.