Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 91 views

    Pelayo vs. Lauron

    Uploaded by

    Remelyn Selda
    The plaintiff, Dr. Arturo Pelayo, provided medical services to the daughter-in-law of the defendants Marcelo Lauron and Juana Abella during childbirth. Dr. Pelayo sought payment of 500 pesos for his services from the parents-in-law, but they refused to pay. The court ruled that the parents-in-law were not obligated to pay as the rendering of medical assistance during illness is the obligation of the spouse under mutual support. The proper party to seek payment from was the husband of the patient, not her parents-in-law.

    Copyright:

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

    Pelayo vs. Lauron

    Uploaded by

    Remelyn Selda
    91 views2 pages
    The plaintiff, Dr. Arturo Pelayo, provided medical services to the daughter-in-law of the defendants Marcelo Lauron and Juana Abella during childbirth. Dr. Pelayo sought payment of 500 pesos for his services from the parents-in-law, but they refused to pay. The court ruled that the parents-in-law were not obligated to pay as the rendering of medical assistance during illness is the obligation of the spouse under mutual support. The proper party to seek payment from was the husband of the patient, not her parents-in-law.

    Original Title

    Pelayo vs. Lauron.docx

    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 plaintiff, Dr. Arturo Pelayo, provided medical services to the daughter-in-law of the defendants Marcelo Lauron and Juana Abella during childbirth. Dr. Pelayo sought payment of 500 pesos for his services from the parents-in-law, but they refused to pay. The court ruled that the parents-in-law were not obligated to pay as the rendering of medical assistance during illness is the obligation of the spouse under mutual support. The proper party to seek payment from was the husband of the patient, not her parents-in-law.

    Copyright:

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

    Pelayo vs. Lauron

    Uploaded by

    Remelyn Selda
    The plaintiff, Dr. Arturo Pelayo, provided medical services to the daughter-in-law of the defendants Marcelo Lauron and Juana Abella during childbirth. Dr. Pelayo sought payment of 500 pesos for his services from the parents-in-law, but they refused to pay. The court ruled that the parents-in-law were not obligated to pay as the rendering of medical assistance during illness is the obligation of the spouse under mutual support. The proper party to seek payment from was the husband of the patient, not her parents-in-law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ARTURO PELAYO VS.

    MARCELO LAURON

    G.R. NO. L-4089 12 PHIL. 453

    TORRES, J.:

    FACTS:

    On or about October 13, 1906, the plaintiff Arturo Pelayo


    was called to the house of the defendants, Marcelo Lauron and
    Juana Abella situated in San Nicolas, and that upon arrival he was
    requested by them to render medical assistance to their daughter-
    in-law who was about to give birth to a child. After consultation with
    the attending physician, Dr. Escaño, the plaintiff found it necessary
    to remove the fetus by means of an operation, in which service he
    was occupied until the following morning, and had visited the
    patient several times. The equitable value of the services rendered
    by the plaintiff was P500.00, which the defendants refused to pay.
    On November 23, 1906, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the
    defendants and prayed that the judgment be rendered in his favor
    as against the defendants, or any of them, for the sum of P500 and
    costs, together with any other relief that may be deemed proper. In
    answer, the defendants denied all allegations and alleged as a
    special defense, that their daughter-in-law died as a consequence
    of the said childbirth, and when she was still alive she lived with her
    husband independently and in a separate house and without any
    relation whatsoever with them, and on the day she gave birth she
    was in the house of the defendants and her stay there was
    accidental and due to fortuitous circumstances. Thus, the
    defendants prayed that they be absolved from the complaint with
    costs against the plaintiff.

    The plaintiff demurred the answer and that the lower court
    sustained the demurrer directing the defendants to amend their
    answer. In compliance, the defendants amended their answer
    denying each and every allegation contained in the complaint. The
    lower court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants absolving
    them from the complaint.

    ISSUE:

    The issue is whether or not the parents-in-law are under any


    obligation to pay the fees claimed by the plaintiff.

    HELD:

    The defendants were not, nor are they now, under any
    obligation by virtue of any legal provision, to pay the fees claimed,
    nor in consequence of any contract entered into between them and
    the plaintiff from which such obligation might have arisen.

    The rendering of medical assistance in case of illness is


    comprised among the mutual obligations to which spouses are
    bound by way of mutual support. 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 the health may be restored; the party bound
    to furnish such support is therefore, liable for all the expenses,
    including the fees of the medical expert for his professional
    services. The liability arises from the obligation, which the law has
    expressly established, between married couples. It is therefore the
    husband of the patient who is bound to pay for the services of the
    plaintiff. The fact that it was not the husband who called the plaintiff
    and requested the medical assistance for his wife is no bar to his
    fulfillment of such obligation, as the defendants, in view of the
    imminent danger to which the life of the patient was at that moment
    exposed, considered that the medical assistance was urgently
    needed. Therefore, plaintiff should direct his action against the
    husband of the patient, and not against her parents-in-law.

    You might also like