You are on page 1of 1

GELUZ V CA Dr.

Geluz committed a criminal and morally reprehensible act and


1961|Reyes that consent of either parent does not excuse it. But the immorality or
illegality of the act does not justify an award or damage that under the
Oscar Lazo, husband of Nita Villanueva, commenced litigation circumstances has no factual/legal basis.
against Antonio Geluz, physician. Dr. Geluz was Nita’s doctor who committed
3x, the first before they were married, after they were married but the DISPOSITIVE: Dismissed without costs. Furnish DOJ and Board of Medical
pregnancy was inconvenient because she was in COMELEC, and two years Examiners.
later again. Upon this third abortion, Lazo filed against Geluz claiming that he
did not know or give consent to the abortion. RSAT

TC: judgment in favor or Lazo: P3,000 according to Article 2206, NCC which
is the minimum price to pay for the death of a person by another (“murder
ma’m”), damages, P700.00 attorneys fees and costs of suit.

Action for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or death


pertains primarily to the one injured, easy to see that if no action for such
damages could be instituted for such damage of an unborn child because of
the injuries he received, no such right could also be done by his
parents/heirs. Even if cause of action did take place, extinguished by his
prenatal death. Art. 40 provisional personality cannot be invoked because the
child should be subsequently born alive.

Issue: Can recovery be had for an unborn child?

Held:

No. Recovery cannot be had for the death of an unborn child.


Parents are entitled to damages but such damages must be those
inflicted directly upon them as distinguished from the injury or violation of
the rights of the deceased, his right to life and physical integrity.

Because parents can not expect support anymore from an unborn


child, they would normally be limited to moral damages for the illegal arrest
of the fetus (distressing and anguishing loss) as well as exemplary
damages.

But in this case, there is no basis for award of moral damages


because Lazo was seemingly indifferent to the previous abortions also
caused by Dr. Geluz which he was aware of due to his lack of concern with
the frustration of his parental hopes. Even after the third abortion, he does
not seem to have an interest to make admin and criminal charges against Dr.
Geluz, all he wanted was money since he sued for P50,000 for damages,
P3,000 for attorneys fees, an “indemnity” claim that is clearly. Righteous
anger of a husband should be high minded rather than mercenary but he
made no effort to strip him of his doctor title.