ZULUETA v COURT OF APPEALS (Sam) Martin and his alleged paramours, greeting cards, cancelled checks, diaries,
February 20, 1996 | Mendoza, J. | Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
PETITIONER: Cecilia Zulueta
RESPONDENT: Court of Appeals and Alfredo Martin
SUMMARY:
Cecilia Zulueta, petitioner, entered the clinic of her husband, Alfredo Martin,
private respondent, forcibly opened the drawers and cabinets and took a total of
157 documents consisting of private correspondence between the private
respondent and his alleged paramours, greeting cards, cancelled checks, diaries,
respondent’s passport, and photographs. The documents and papers were to be
used in evidence in a case for legal separation and for disqualification from
practice of medicine filed by the petitioner against the private respondent.
Respondent then filed an action for the recovery of the documents and damages
against the petitioner which was granted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The
decision of the RTC was then affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) hence this
petition for certiorary.
Cecilia’s side: She contended that the case of Alfredo Martin vs Alfonso Felix,
Jr. (NOTE: the case is between her husband, Dr. Martin and a lawyer, atty.
Alfonso) where the court ruled that the documents and papers were admissible in
evidence and that the use of those documents by Atty. Alfonso did not constitute
gross malpractice and gross misconduct.
Trial court ruled in favor of the respondent. CA affirmed RTC decision.
SC denied the petition and affirmed CA decision
DOCTRINE:
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 requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law." Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding."
A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to
privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him
or to her.
FACTS:
1. Petitioner Zulueta was the wife of Respondent Martin, a medical doctor. On
March 26, 1982, Petitioner Zulueta entered the clinic of Respondent Martin
and in the presence of her mother, a driver and private respondent's
secretary, forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her husband's clinic
and took documents consisting of private correspondence between Dr.
Dr. Martin's passport, and photographs
2. The documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for
legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine
which she had filed against her husband.
3. Trial Court of Manila declared respondent Martin as the capital/exclusive
owner of those properties his wife had seized and ordered Petitioner Zulueta
to return them to respondent Martin to pay him moral and nominal
damages.
4. CA affirmed trail court’s decision.
5. On petition, SC held that the documents taken by petitioner Zulueta
exclusively belong to respondent Martin and the documents are
inadmissible as evidence.
ISSUE/s:
Whether or not the documents obtained be admissible as evidence against the
respondent. – NO
Whether or not petitioner’s taking of her husband’s documents without his consent
constitutes a violation of privacy? - YES
RULING:
SC denied the petition and affirmed CA decision.
RATIO:
1. The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by
making it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the
other without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists.
Neither may be examined without the consent of the other as to any
communication received in confidence by one from the other during the
marriage, save for specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom of
communication; quite another is a compulsion for each one to share what
one knows with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of
fidelity that each owes to the other.