Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 114 views

    Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Nicko
    The petitioner entered her husband's clinic without permission and took 157 documents including private correspondence, cards, checks, diaries and photos to use as evidence against him in legal proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling that the documents must be returned as they were obtained in violation of the husband's constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, finding that a spouse does not forfeit their right to privacy upon marriage, and the documents were inadmissible.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Nicko
    114 views1 page
    The petitioner entered her husband's clinic without permission and took 157 documents including private correspondence, cards, checks, diaries and photos to use as evidence against him in legal proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling that the documents must be returned as they were obtained in violation of the husband's constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, finding that a spouse does not forfeit their right to privacy upon marriage, and the documents were inadmissible.

    Original Title

    Zulueta-v-CA-GR-No.-107383-Feb.-20-1996

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner entered her husband's clinic without permission and took 157 documents including private correspondence, cards, checks, diaries and photos to use as evidence against him in legal proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling that the documents must be returned as they were obtained in violation of the husband's constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, finding that a spouse does not forfeit their right to privacy upon marriage, and the documents were inadmissible.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    114 views1 page

    Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Nicko
    The petitioner entered her husband's clinic without permission and took 157 documents including private correspondence, cards, checks, diaries and photos to use as evidence against him in legal proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling that the documents must be returned as they were obtained in violation of the husband's constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, finding that a spouse does not forfeit their right to privacy upon marriage, and the documents were inadmissible.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    10.

    applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself


    aggrieved by her husband’s infidelity) who is the party against
    Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996
    whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only
    Facts: exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a
    “lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order requires
    This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals,
    otherwise, as prescribed by law.”  Any violation of this provision
    affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch
    renders the evidence obtained inadmissible “for any purpose in
    X) which ordered petitioner to return documents and papers taken
    any proceeding.” 
    by her from private respondent’s clinic without the latter’s
    knowledge and consent.  The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of
    them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in
    Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo
    ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A
    Martin. On March 26, 1982, petitioner entered the clinic of her
    person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or
    husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the Ipresence of her mother,
    his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional
    a driver and private respondent’s secretary, forcibly opened the
    protection is ever available to him or to her.
    drawers and cabinet in her husband’s clinic and took 157
    documents consisting of private correspondence between Dr. The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the
    Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings cards, cancelled spouses by making it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may
    checks, diaries, Dr. Martin’s passport, and photographs. testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected
    spouse while the marriage subsists.  Neither may be examined
    The documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a
    without the consent of the other as to any communication received
    case for legal separation and for disqualification from the practice
    in confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save for
    of medicine which petitioner had filed against her husband.
    specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom of communication;
    Issue: 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
    Whether or not the documents and papers in question are fidelity that each owes to the other. 
    inadmissible in evidence
    The review for petition is DENIED for lack of merit. 
    Held:

    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

    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