GELUZ vs.

CA
2 SCRA 801

FACTS:
Respondent Oscar Lazo’s wife Nita Villanueva, came to know petitioner physician
Antonio Geluz, through her aunt Paula Yambot.  Nita became pregnant some time in
1950 before she and Oscar were legally married.  To conceal the pregnancy from her
parents, she decided to have it aborted by Geluz.  She had an abortion again on
October 1953 since she found it inconvenient as she was employed at COMELEC.

After two years, on February 21, 1955, she got pregnant again and had yet another
abortion at Geluz’ clinic.  Oscar at this time was in the province of Cagayan
campaigning for his election to the provincial board.  He doesn’t have any idea nor
has he given consent on the abortion.

ISSUE:
 
Whether husband of a woman, who voluntarily procured her abortion, could recover
damages from the physician who caused the same.

HELD:
The concept of provisional personality cannot be invoked to obtain damages in behalf
of an aborted child. Both trial court and Court of Appeals were unable to find any
basis for an award of moral damages. Oscar’s indifference to the previous abortions of
Nita clearly indicates that he was unconcerned with the frustration of his parental
affections.

Instead of filing an administrative or criminal case against Geluz, he turned his wife’s
indiscretion to personal profit and filed a civil action for damages of which not only
he but, including his wife would be the beneficiaries.

It shows that his real motive is to obtain large money from the payment to be made
since he sued Geluz for P50,000 damages and P3,000 attorney’s fees that serves as
indemnity claim, which under the circumstances was clearly exaggerated.