Pelayo Vs. Lauron 12 Phil 453

Truths:

On November 23, 1906 the plaintiff, Mr. Arturo Pelayo, a physician, has submitted a case against the defendants, Mr Marelo Lauron and Mrs. Juana Abella. The case that was filed, had to do with the services rendered of Mr. Arturo Pelayo for the night and the day after of October 13, 1906 where the plaintiff was summoned to the offenders home to aid their daughter-in-law's birth, where the participating in physician, Dr. Escaño, has actually stated that it would have been a challenging process.

No matter this, Mr Pelayo has continued with the job that needed him to get rid of the fetus with the forceps.

The job occupied him all night until the day after for the removal of the afterbirth and the visitation of the patient. The plaintiff has charged the defendants with P500 for the services he had rendered for them but the defendants has refused to pay. The counsel for the defendants alleged, that the defendants daughter-in-law had died from child birth and that when she was still alive, she has lived independently and separately, from the defendants, with her husband.

Get quality help now

Marrie pro writer

Verified writer

Proficient in: Free Essays

5 (204)

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Her birth at the house of the defendants was just accidental and was at an avoidable time.

Issue:

Are the defendants liable for the payment of the services rendered by the plaintiff?

Head:

No. According to the article Arts. 1090 and 1091, The rendering of medical assistance in case of illness was comprised among the mutual obligations to which the spouses were bound by way of mutual support. Spouses are mutually bounded together to support each other.

In the issue above, it is the husbands duty to pay for the services rendered to his wife not the father nor the mother-in-law who are just strangers within the meaning of the law. So ruling of the court is; "Therefore, in view of the consideration hereinbefore set forth, it is our opinion that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed with the costs against the appellant. So ordered."