Gonzales v.
CA
GR# 117740 | 298 SCRA 322 | October 30, 1998
Petitioner: CAROLINA ABAD GONZALES
Respondent: COURT OF APPEALS, HORNORIA EMPAYNADO, CECILIA
H. ABAD, MARIAN H. ABAD and ROSEMARIE S. ABADS\
DOCTRINE: Sterility alone, even without the attendant embarrassment of
contracting a sexually transmitted disease is sufficient to blacken the reputation
of any patient considering that society holds virility at a premium.
FACTS
1. On April 18, 1972, Carolina, along with the other siblings of the
deceased, Ricardo Abad, sought the settlement of the estate of the
latter. In their petition, they claimed that they were the only heirs of
Ricardo and the latter dies a bachelor, leaving no descendants or
ascendants.
2. Honoria Empaynado, who was the common law wife of Ricardo for 27
years, along with their children during this union, Cecilia and Marian,
and also disclosed the existence of Rosemarie, a child allegedly
fathered by Ricardo with another woman. They opposed the petition,
as the law awards the entire estate to the surviving children to the
exclusion of the collaterals.
3. They charged Carolina for deliberately concealing the existence of the
children to deprive them of their rights to the estate of Ricardo.
4. The trial court declared that the Cecilia, Marian and Rosemarie were
the acknowledge natural children and are the only surviving legal heirs
of Ricardo.
5. On appeal, Carolina presented the affidavit of Dr. Pedro Arenas,
Ricardo’s physician, declaring that in 1935, he examined Ricardo and
found him to be infected with gonorrhea, and the latter had become
sterile as a consequence thereof.
6. Carolina does not dispute that the affidavit meets the first four requisites
of privilege communication between physician and patient, however,
the finding that Ricardo was “sterile” that arose from contracting
gonorrhea, she contends that such fact does not blacken his reputation.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
1. W/N the affidavit of Dr. Arenas is privilege communication?
RULING & RATIO
- YES
1. Carolina conveniently forget that Ricardo Abad’s sterility arose when
the latter contracted gonorrhea, a fact which most assuredly blackens
his reputation.
2. Given that society holds virility at a premium, sterility alone, without the
attendant embarrassment of contracting a sexually-transmitted
disease, would be sufficient to blacken the reputation of any
patient. We thus hold the affidavit inadmissible in evidence. And the
same remains inadmissible in evidence, notwithstanding the death of
Ricardo Abad.
3. The privilege of secrecy is not abolished or terminated because of
death as stated in established precedents. It is an established rule that
the purpose of the law would be thwarted and the policy intended to be
promoted thereby would be defeated, if death removed the seal of
secrecy, from the communications and disclosures which a patient
should make to his physician
DISPOSITION: Petition denied.
NOTES: Carolina’s other theory why the respondents are not Ricardo’s
children.
1. Before Ricardo, Honoria had a husband named Jose Libunao but was
actually dead. They had three children which were Angelita, Cesar,
and Maria. Carolina alleged that at the time Cecilia and Marian were
born in 1948 and 1954 respectively, Jose was still alive
2. Carolina contended that Jose died in 1971. The date of death of Jose
is important because if he was still alive in 1971, and given that he
was still legally married to Honoria, the presumption would be that
Cecilia and Maria are not Ricardo’s children but that of Jose.
3. They bolstered their theory when they presented in evidence the
application for enrollment at Mapua of Angelita in 1956 and that of
Cesar in 1958, where it stated that the name of their father in the
application is “Jose Libunao”. Thereby they conclude that Jose Libuna
must have still been alive in 1956 and 1958.
4. The court held the evidence presented by petitioners to prove that Jose
Libunao died in 1971 are far from conclusive. Failure to indicate on an
enrolment form that ones’ parent is deceased is not necessarily proof
that said parent was still living during the time said form was being
accomplished. The best evidence would have been the death
certificate.