Pelayo v Lauron, G.R. No. 4089, January 12, 1909 CASE DIGEST

Facts:

    Petitioner, a physician, filed a complaint against respondents that on or about the 13th of October 1906, at night, he was called to the house of respondents, and upon arrival, he was requested by them to render medical assistance to their daughter-in-law who was about to give birth. It was found necessary, on account of the difficult birth, to remove the fetus by means of forceps and also to remove the after birth. The just and equitable value of the services rendered by the petitioner was Php 500, to which the respondents refuse to pay without alleging any good reason. In answer to the complaint, the respondents denied all the allegations, that their daughter-in-law had died in consequence of the childbirth, she lived with her husband independently and in a separate house, and that her stay was accidental and due to fortuitous circumstances.

Issue:

    WoN the respondents are bound or obligated to pay the fees due to the petitioner?

Ruling:

(Article 1158)

    No, the respondents are not obligated to pay the fees due to the petitioner.

    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.

    The rendering of medical assistance in case of illness is comprised of the mutual obligations to which spouses are bound by way of mutual support.

    The person bound to pay the fees due to the petitioner for the professional services that he rendered to the daughter-in-law of the respondents during her childbirth is the husband of the patient and not her father-in-law and mother-in-law.

    The fact that it was not the husband who called the petitioner and requested his assistance for his wife is no bar to the fulfillment of the said obligation, as the respondents, in view of the imminent danger to which the life of the patient was at that moment exposed, considered that medical assistance was urgently needed, and the obligation of the husband to furnish his wife with the indispensable services of a physician at such critical moments is specially established by the law, as has been, and compliance therewith is unavoidable; therefore, the petitioner, who believes that he is entitled to recover his fees must direct his action against the husband who is under obligation to furnish medical assistance to his lawful wife in such an emergency.