Scribd
Upload
525 views2 pages

Zulueta Vs CA

(1) Cecilia Zulueta forcibly took 157 documents from her husband Alfredo Martin's clinic without his consent, including private correspondence and photographs. She took the documents to use as evidence in legal proceedings against her husband. (2) The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the lower court, ordering Zulueta to return the documents. (3) The Supreme Court denies the petition for review, upholding that the documents are inadmissible due to the constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence, even between spouses. Marital status does not remove this constitutional protection.

Uploaded by

Zonix Lomboy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
525 views2 pages

Zulueta Vs CA

(1) Cecilia Zulueta forcibly took 157 documents from her husband Alfredo Martin's clinic without his consent, including private correspondence and photographs. She took the documents to use as evidence in legal proceedings against her husband. (2) The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the lower court, ordering Zulueta to return the documents. (3) The Supreme Court denies the petition for review, upholding that the documents are inadmissible due to the constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence, even between spouses. Marital status does not remove this constitutional protection.

Uploaded by

Zonix Lomboy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ZULUETA VS.

CA

ZULUETA VS. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996

Petitioner: Cecilia Zulueta

Respondents: Court of Appeals and Alfredo Martin Ponente: J. Mendoza

Facts:

This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch X) which ordered
petitioner to return documents and papers taken by her from private
respondent's clinic without the latter's knowledge and consent.

Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wi fe of private respondent Alfredo Martin. On


March 26, 1982, petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of
medicine, and in the presence of her mother, a driver and private respondent's
secretary, forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her h usband's clinic and
took 157 documents consisting of private correspondence between Dr. Martin
and his alleged paramours, greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr.
Martin's passport, and photographs. 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 petitioner had filed against her husband.

Issue:

(1) Whether or not the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in
evidence;

Held:

(1) No. Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in
evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of
communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable" is no less applicable
simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrie ved by her husband's
infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be
enforced. 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."

The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in
breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any
telltale evidence of marital infidelity. 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 t o her.

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.

The review for petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy