2/17/2016

ZuluetavsCA:107383:February20,1996:JMendoza:SecondDivision

[Syllabus]

SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.107383.February20,1996.]

CECILIAZULUETA,petitioner,vs.COURTOFAPPEALSandALFREDOMARTIN,respondents.
DECISION
MENDOZA,J.:

ThisisapetitiontoreviewthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,affirmingthedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtofManila
(BranchX)whichorderedpetitionertoreturndocumentsandpaperstakenbyherfromprivaterespondentsclinicwithoutthe
lattersknowledgeandconsent.
Thefactsareasfollows:
PetitionerCeciliaZuluetaisthewifeofprivaterespondentAlfredoMartin.OnMarch26,1982,petitionerenteredtheclinic
ofherhusband,adoctorofmedicine,andinthepresenceofhermother,adriverandprivaterespondentssecretary,forcibly
openedthedrawersandcabinetinherhusbandsclinicandtook157documentsconsistingofprivatecorrespondencebetween
Dr.Martinandhisallegedparamours,greetingscards,cancelledchecks,diaries,Dr.Martinspassport,andphotographs.The
documentsandpaperswereseizedforuseinevidenceinacaseforlegalseparationandfordisqualificationfromthepractice
ofmedicinewhichpetitionerhadfiledagainstherhusband.
Dr. Martin brought this action below for recovery of the documents and papers and for damages against petitioner. The
casewasfiledwiththeRegionalTrialCourtofManila,BranchX,which,aftertrial,renderedjudgmentforprivaterespondent,
Dr.AlfredoMartin,declaringhimthecapital/exclusiveownerofthepropertiesdescribedinparagraph3ofplaintiffsComplaint
or those further described in the Motion to Return and Suppress and ordering Cecilia Zulueta and any person acting in her
behalftoimmediatelyreturnthepropertiestoDr.MartinandtopayhimP5,000.00,asnominaldamagesP5,000.00,asmoral
damagesandattorneysfeesandtopaythecostsofthesuit.Thewritofpreliminaryinjunctionearlierissuedwasmadefinal
and petitioner Cecilia Zulueta and her attorneys and representatives were enjoined from using or submitting/admitting as
evidencethedocumentsandpapersinquestion.Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsaffirmedthedecisionoftheRegionalTrial
Court.Hencethispetition.
Thereisnoquestionthatthedocumentsandpapersinquestionbelongtoprivaterespondent,Dr.AlfredoMartin,andthat
theyweretakenbyhiswife,thehereinpetitioner,withouthisknowledgeandconsent.Forthatreason,thetrialcourtdeclared
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107383.htm

1/3

2/17/2016

ZuluetavsCA:107383:February20,1996:JMendoza:SecondDivision

thedocumentsandpaperstobepropertiesofprivaterespondent,orderedpetitionertoreturnthemtoprivaterespondentand
enjoined her from using them in evidence. In appealing from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial courts
decision,petitionersonlygroundisthatinAlfredoMartinv.AlfonsoFelix,Jr.,1thisCourtruledthatthedocumentsandpapers
(markedasAnnexesAitoJ7ofrespondentscommentinthatcase)wereadmissibleinevidenceand,therefore,theiruseby
petitionersattorney,AlfonsoFelix,Jr.,didnotconstitutemalpracticeorgrossmisconduct.Forthisreasonitiscontendedthat
theCourtofAppealserredinaffirmingthedecisionofthetrialcourtinsteadofdismissingprivaterespondentscomplaint.
Petitioners contention has no merit. The case against Atty. Felix, Jr. was for disbarment. Among other things, private
respondent,Dr.AlfredoMartin,ascomplainantinthatcase,chargedthatinusingthedocumentsinevidence,Atty.Felix,Jr.
committedmalpracticeorgrossmisconductbecauseoftheinjunctiveorderofthetrialcourt.Indismissingthecomplaintagainst
Atty.Felix,Jr.,thisCourttooknoteofthefollowingdefenseofAtty.Felix,Jr.whichitfoundtobeimpressedwithmerit:2
Ontheallegedmalpracticeorgrossmisconductofrespondent[AlfonsoFelix,Jr.],hemaintainsthat:
xxxxxxxxx
4.WhenrespondentrefiledCeciliascaseforlegalseparationbeforethePasigRegionalTrialCourt,therewasadmittedlyanorderofthe
ManilaRegionalTrialCourtprohibitingCeciliafromusingthedocumentsAnnexAItoJ7.OnSeptember6,1983,howeverhaving
appealedthesaidordertothisCourtonapetitionforcertiorari,thisCourtissuedarestrainingorderonaforesaiddatewhichorder
temporarilysetasidetheorderofthetrialcourt.Hence,duringtheenforceabilityofthisCourtsorder,respondentsrequestforpetitionerto
admitthegenuinenessandauthenticityofthesubjectannexescannotbelookeduponasmalpractice.Notably,petitionerDr.Martinfinally
admittedthetruthandauthenticityofthequestionedannexes.Atthatpointintime,wouldithavebeenmalpracticeforrespondenttouse
petitionersadmissionasevidenceagainsthiminthelegalseparationcasependingintheRegionalTrialCourtofMakati?Respondent
submitsitisnotmalpractice.
Significantly, petitioners 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.ForCeciliatoavailherselfofherhusbandsadmissionandusethesameinheractionforlegalseparationcannotbe
treatedasmalpractice.
Thus,theacquittalofAtty.Felix,Jr.intheadministrativecaseamountstonomorethanadeclarationthathisuseofthe
documents and papers for the purpose of securing Dr. Martins admission as to their genuiness 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
admissibilityofthedocumentsandpapersinquestion.
ItcannotbeoveremphasizedthatifAtty.Felix,Jr.wasacquittedofthechargeofviolatingthewritofpreliminaryinjunction
issuedbythetrialcourt,itwasonlybecause,atthetimeheusedthedocumentsandpapers,enforcementoftheorderofthe
trial court was temporarily restrained by this Court. The TRO issued by this Court was eventually lifted as the petition for
certiorarifiledbypetitioneragainstthetrialcourtsorderwasdismissedand,therefore,theprohibitionagainstthefurtheruseof
thedocumentsandpapersbecameeffectiveagain.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107383.htm

2/3

2/17/2016

ZuluetavsCA:107383:February20,1996:JMendoza:SecondDivision

Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring the
privacyofcommunicationandcorrespondence[tobe]inviolable3isnolessapplicablesimplybecauseitisthewife(whothinks
herselfaggrievedbyherhusbandsinfidelity)whoisthepartyagainstwhomtheconstitutionalprovisionistobeenforced.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
requiresotherwise,as prescribedby law.4 Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for any
purposeinanyproceeding.5
Theintimaciesbetweenhusbandandwifedonotjustifyanyoneoftheminbreakingthedrawersandcabinetsoftheother
andinransackingthemforanytelltaleevidenceofmaritalinfidelity.Aperson,bycontractingmarriage,doesnotshedhis/her
integrityorhisrighttoprivacyasanindividualandtheconstitutionalprotectioniseveravailabletohimortoher.
The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making it privileged. Neither husband nor
wifemaytestifyfororagainsttheotherwithouttheconsentoftheaffectedspousewhilethemarriagesubsists.6Neithermaybe
examinedwithouttheconsentoftheotherastoanycommunicationreceivedinconfidencebyonefromtheotherduringthe
marriage,saveforspecifiedexceptions.7Butonethingisfreedomofcommunicationquiteanotherisacompulsionforeach
onetosharewhatoneknowswiththeother.Andthishasnothingtodowiththedutyoffidelitythateachowestotheother.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionforreviewisDENIEDforlackofmerit.
SOORDERED.
Regalado(Chairman),Romero,andPuno,JJ.,concur.
1163SCRA111(1988).
2Id.at120121,126.
31973CONST.,Art.IV,4(1)1987CONST.,Art.III,3(1).
4Id.
51973CONST.,ART.IV,4(2)1987CONST.,Art.III,3(2).
6Rule130,22.
7Rule130,24.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/feb1996/107383.htm

3/3