Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    (I) 12. Zulueta v. CA - Case

    Uploaded by

    Robehgene Atud
    The Supreme Court held that the documents were private and constitutionally protected from invasion of privacy. Just being married did not remove an individual's right to privacy. Therefore, the documents were inadmissible in evidence and Zulueta was ordered to return them.

    Copyright:

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

    (I) 12. Zulueta v. CA - Case

    Uploaded by

    Robehgene Atud
    41 views4 pages
    The Supreme Court held that the documents were private and constitutionally protected from invasion of privacy. Just being married did not remove an individual's right to privacy. Therefore, the documents were inadmissible in evidence and Zulueta was ordered to return them.

    Original Title

    (I) 12. Zulueta v. CA_Case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court held that the documents were private and constitutionally protected from invasion of privacy. Just being married did not remove an individual's right to privacy. Therefore, the documents were inadmissible in evidence and Zulueta was ordered to return them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    41 views4 pages

    (I) 12. Zulueta v. CA - Case

    Uploaded by

    Robehgene Atud
    The Supreme Court held that the documents were private and constitutionally protected from invasion of privacy. Just being married did not remove an individual's right to privacy. Therefore, the documents were inadmissible in evidence and Zulueta was ordered to return them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    [G.R. No. 107383. February 20, 1996.

    CECILIA ZULUETA, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO


    MARTIN, Respondents.

    Leonides S. Respicio & Associates Law Office for Petitioner.

    Galileo P. Brion for Private Respondent.

    SYLLABUS

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF


    COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE; 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. — 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 husband’s 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

    DECISION

    MENDOZA, J.:

    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.

    The facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    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.

    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 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.

    There is no question that the documents and papers in question belong to


    private respondent, Dr. Alfredo Martin, and that they were taken by his
    wife, the herein petitioner, without his knowledge and consent. For that
    reason, the trial court declared the documents and papers to be
    properties of private respondent, ordered petitioner to return them to
    private respondent and enjoined her from using them in evidence. In
    appealing from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial
    court’s decision, petitioner’s only ground is that in Alfredo Mantin v.
    Alfonso Felix, Jr., 1 this Court ruled that the documents and papers
    (marked as Annexes A-1 to J-7 of respondent’s comment in that case)
    were admissible in evidence and, therefore, their use by petitioner’s
    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 respondent’s complaint.

    Petitioner’s contention has no merit. The case against Atty. Felix, Jr. was
    for disbarment. Among other things, private respondent, Dr. Alfredo
    Martin, as complainant in that case, charged that in using the documents
    in evidence, Atty. Felix, Jr. committed malpractice or gross misconduct
    because of the injunctive order of the trial court. In dismissing the
    complaint against Atty. Felix, Jr., this Court took note of the following
    defense of Atty. Felix, Jr. which it found to be "impressed with merit:" 2 

    On the alleged malpractice or gross misconduct of respondent [Alfonso


    Felix, Jr.], he maintains that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x

    4. When respondent refiled Cecilia’s case for legal separation before the
    Pasig Regional Trial Court, there was admittedly an order of the Manila
    Regional Trial Court prohibiting Cecilia from using the documents Annex
    "A-1 to J-7." On September 6, 1983, however having appealed the said
    order to this Court on a petition for certiorari, this Court issued a
    restraining order on aforesaid date which order temporarily set aside the
    order of the trial court. Hence, during the enforceability of this Court’s
    order, respondent’s request for petitioner to admit the genuineness and
    authenticity of the subject annexes cannot be looked upon as malpractice.
    Notably, petitioner Dr. Martin finally admitted the truth and authenticity of
    the questioned annexes. At that point in time, would it have been
    malpractice for respondent to use petitioner’s admission as evidence
    against him in the legal separation case pending in the Regional Trial
    Court of Makati? Respondent submits it is not malpractice.

    Significantly, petitioner’s admission was done not thru his counsel but by
    Dr. Martin himself under oath. Such verified admission constitutes an
    affidavit, and, therefore, receivable in evidence against him. Petitioner
    became bound by his admission. For Cecilia to avail herself of her
    husband’s admission and use the same in her action for legal separation
    cannot be treated as malpractice.

    Thus, the acquittal of Atty. Felix, Jr. in the administrative case amounts to
    no more than a declaration that his use of the documents and papers for
    the purpose of securing Dr. Martin’s admission as to their genuineness
    and authenticity did not constitute a violation of the injunctive order of
    the trial court. By no means does the decision in that case establish the
    admissibility of the documents and papers in question.

    It cannot be overemphasized that if Atty. Felix, Jr. was acquitted of the


    charge of violating the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the trial
    court, it was only because, at the time he used the documents and
    papers, enforcement of the order of the trial court was temporarily
    restrained by this Court. The TRO issued by this Court was eventually
    lifted as the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner against the trial
    court’s order was dismissed and, therefore, the prohibition against the
    further use of the documents and papers became effective again.
    Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in
    evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of
    communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable" 3 is no less
    applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by
    her husband’s 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." 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
    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. 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.

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

    SO ORDERED.

    Regalado, Romero and Puno, JJ., concur.

    You might also like