1. Dr. Ruby Li v. Sps. Soliman

FACTS:

On July 7, 1993, respondents’ 11-year old daughter, Angelica Soliman, underwent a biopsy of the mass located in her lower extremity at the St. Luke’s Medical Center (SLMC). Results showed that Angelica was suffering from osteosarcoma, osteoblastic type,4 a high-grade (highly malignant) cancer of the bone which usually afflicts teenage children. Following this diagnosis and as primary intervention, Angelica’s right leg was amputated by Dr. Jaime Tamayo in order to remove the tumor. As adjuvant treatment to eliminate any remaining cancer cells, and hence minimize the chances of recurrence and prevent the disease from spreading to other parts of the patient’s body (metastasis), chemotherapy was suggested by Dr. Tamayo. Dr. Tamayo referred Angelica to another doctor at SLMC, herein petitioner Dr. Rubi Li, a medical oncologist.

On August 18, 1993, Angelica was admitted to SLMC. However, she died on September 1, 1993, just eleven (11) days after the (intravenous) administration of the first cycle of the chemotherapy regimen. Because SLMC refused to release a death certificate without full payment of their hospital bill, respondents brought the cadaver of Angelica to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame for post-mortem examination. The Medico-Legal Report issued by said institution indicated the cause of death as "Hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple organ hemorrhages and Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation."5

On the other hand, the Certificate of Death6 issued by SLMC stated the cause of death as follows:

Immediate cause : a. Osteosarcoma, Status Post AKA

Antecedent cause : b. (above knee amputation)

Underlying cause : c. Status Post Chemotherapy

On February 21, 1994, respondents filed a damage suit7 against petitioner, Dr. Leo Marbella, Mr. Jose Ledesma, a certain Dr. Arriete and SLMC. Respondents charged them with negligence and disregard of Angelica’s safety, health and welfare by their careless administration of the chemotherapy drugs, their failure to observe the essential precautions in detecting early the symptoms of fatal blood platelet decrease and stopping early on the chemotherapy, which bleeding led to hypovolemic shock that caused Angelica’s untimely demise. Further, it was specifically averred that petitioner assured the respondents that Angelica would recover in view of 95% chance of healing with chemotherapy ("Magiging normal na ang anak nyo basta ma-chemo. 95% ang healing") and when asked regarding the side effects, petitioner mentioned only slight vomiting, hair loss and weakness ("Magsusuka ng kaunti. Malulugas ang buhok. Manghihina"). Respondents thus claimed that they would not have given their consent to chemotherapy had petitioner not falsely assured them of its side effects.

In her answer,8 petitioner denied having been negligent in administering the chemotherapy drugs to Angelica and asserted that she had fully explained to respondents how the chemotherapy will affect not only the cancer cells but also the patient’s normal body parts, including the lowering of white and red blood cells and platelets. She claimed that what happened to Angelica can be attributed to malignant tumor cells possibly left behind after surgery. Few as they may be, these have the capacity to compete for nutrients such that the body becomes so weak structurally (cachexia) and functionally in the form of lower resistance of the body to combat infection. Such infection becomes uncontrollable and triggers a chain of events (sepsis or septicemia) that may lead to bleeding in the form of Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC), as what the autopsy report showed in the case of Angelica.

Since the medical records of Angelica were not produced in court, the trial and appellate courts had to rely on testimonial evidence, principally the declarations of petitioner and respondents themselves.

Page 1 of 35

In dismissing the complaint, the trial court held that petitioner was not liable for damages as she observed the best known procedures and employed her highest skill and knowledge in the administration of chemotherapy drugs on Angelica but despite all efforts said patient died. It cited the testimony of Dr. Tamayo who testified that he considered petitioner one of the most proficient in the treatment of cancer and that the patient in this case was afflicted with a very aggressive type of cancer necessitating chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment. Using the standard of negligence laid down in Picart v. Smith,47 the trial court declared that petitioner has taken the necessary precaution against the adverse effect of chemotherapy on the patient, adding that a wrong decision is not by itself negligence. Respondents were ordered to pay their unpaid hospital bill in the amount of P139,064.43.48

Respondents appealed to the CA which, while concurring with the trial court’s finding that there was no negligence committed by the petitioner in the administration of chemotherapy treatment to Angelica, found that petitioner as her attending physician failed to fully explain to the respondents all the known side effects of chemotherapy. The appellate court stressed that since the respondents have been told of only three side effects of chemotherapy, they readily consented thereto. Had petitioner made known to respondents those other side effects which gravely affected their child -- such as carpo-pedal spasm, sepsis, decrease in the blood platelet count, bleeding, infections and eventual death -- respondents could have decided differently or adopted a different course of action which could have delayed or prevented the early death of their child.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

The issue to be resolved is whether the petitioner can be held liable for failure to fully disclose serious side effects to the parents of the child patient who died while undergoing chemotherapy, despite the absence of finding that petitioner was negligent in administering the said treatment.

HELD:

The petition is meritorious.

The type of lawsuit which has been called medical malpractice or, more appropriately, medical negligence, is that type of claim which a victim has available to him or her to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional which has caused bodily harm. In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove that a health care provider, in most cases a physician, either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that that failure or action caused injury to the patient.51

This Court has recognized that medical negligence cases are best proved by opinions of expert witnesses belonging in the same general neighborhood and in the same general line of practice as defendant physician or surgeon. The deference of courts to the expert opinion of qualified physicians stems from the former’s realization that the latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen in most instances are incapable of intelligently evaluating, hence the indispensability of expert testimonies. 52

In this case, both the trial and appellate courts concurred in finding that the alleged negligence of petitioner in the administration of chemotherapy drugs to respondents’ child was not proven considering that Drs. Vergara and Balmaceda, not being oncologists or cancer specialists, were not qualified to give expert opinion as to whether petitioner’s lack of skill, knowledge and professional competence in failing to observe the standard of care in her line of practice was the proximate cause of the patient’s death. Furthermore, respondents’ case was not at all

Page 2 of 35

helped by the non-production of medical records by the hospital (only the biopsy result and medical bills were submitted to the court).

The doctrine of informed consent within the context of physician-patient relationships goes far back into English common law. As early as 1767, doctors were charged with the tort of "battery" (i.e., an unauthorized physical contact with a patient) if they had not gained the consent of their patients prior to performing a surgery or procedure. In the United States, the seminal case was Schoendorff v. Society of New York Hospital53 which involved unwanted treatment performed by a doctor. Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s oft-quoted opinion upheld the basic right of a patient to give consent to any medical procedure or treatment: "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent, commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages."54 From a purely ethical norm, informed consent evolved into a general principle of law that a physician has a duty to disclose what a reasonably prudent physician in the medical community in the exercise of reasonable care would disclose to his patient as to whatever grave risks of injury might be incurred from a proposed course of treatment, so that a patient, exercising ordinary care for his own welfare, and faced with a choice of undergoing the proposed treatment, or alternative treatment, or none at all, may intelligently exercise his judgment by reasonably balancing the probable risks against the probable benefits.55

There are four essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a malpractice action based upon the doctrine of informed consent: "(1) the physician had a duty to disclose material risks; (2) he failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks; (3) as a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient consented to treatment she otherwise would not have consented to; and (4) plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment." The gravamen in an informed consent case requires the plaintiff to "point to significant undisclosed information relating to the treatment which would have altered her decision to undergo it.64

Examining the evidence on record, we hold that there was adequate disclosure of material risks inherent in the chemotherapy procedure performed with the consent of Angelica’s parents. Respondents could not have been unaware in the course of initial treatment and amputation of Angelica’s lower extremity, that her immune system was already weak on account of the malignant tumor in her knee. When petitioner informed the respondents beforehand of the side effects of chemotherapy which includes lowered counts of white and red blood cells, decrease in blood platelets, possible kidney or heart damage and skin darkening, there is reasonable expectation on the part of the doctor that the respondents understood very well that the severity of these side effects will not be the same for all patients undergoing the procedure. In other words, by the nature of the disease itself, each patient’s reaction to the chemical agents even with pre-treatment laboratory tests cannot be precisely determined by the physician. That death can possibly result from complications of the treatment or the underlying cancer itself, immediately or sometime after the administration of chemotherapy drugs, is a risk that cannot be ruled out, as with most other major medical procedures, but such conclusion can be reasonably drawn from the general side effects of chemotherapy already disclosed.

The element of ethical duty to disclose material risks in the proposed medical treatment cannot thus be reduced to one simplistic formula applicable in all instances. Further, in a medical malpractice action based on lack of informed consent, "the plaintiff must prove both the duty and the breach of that duty through expert testimony. 66

Such expert testimony must show the customary standard of care of physicians in the same practice as that of the defendant doctor.67

In this case, the testimony of Dr. Balmaceda who is not an oncologist but a Medical Specialist of the DOH’s Operational and Management Services charged with receiving complaints against hospitals, does not qualify as expert testimony to establish the standard of care in obtaining consent for chemotherapy treatment. In the absence of expert testimony in this regard, the Court feels hesitant in defining the scope of mandatory disclosure

Page 3 of 35

in cases of malpractice based on lack of informed consent, much less set a standard of disclosure that, even in foreign jurisdictions, has been noted to be an evolving one.

2. PSI v. Agana

FACTS:

On April 4, 1984, Natividad Agana was rushed to the Medical City General Hospital (Medical City Hospital) because of difficulty of bowel movement and bloody anal discharge. After a series of medical examinations, Dr. Miguel Ampil, petitioner in G.R. No. 127590, diagnosed her to be suffering from "cancer of the sigmoid."

On April 11, 1984, Dr. Ampil, assisted by the medical staff4 of the Medical City Hospital, performed an anterior resection surgery on Natividad. He found that the malignancy in her sigmoid area had spread on her left ovary, necessitating the removal of certain portions of it. Thus, Dr. Ampil obtained the consent of Natividad’s husband, Enrique Agana, to permit Dr. Juan Fuentes, respondent in G.R. No. 126467, to perform hysterectomy on her.

After Dr. Fuentes had completed the hysterectomy, Dr. Ampil took over, completed the operation and closed the incision.

However, the operation appeared to be flawed. In the corresponding Record of Operation dated April 11, 1984, the attending nurses entered these remarks:

"sponge count lacking 2

"announced to surgeon searched (sic) done but to no avail continue for closure."

On April 24, 1984, Natividad was released from the hospital. Her hospital and medical bills, including the doctors’ fees, amounted to P60,000.00.

After a couple of days, Natividad complained of excruciating pain in her anal region. She consulted both Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes about it. They told her that the pain was the natural consequence of the surgery. Dr. Ampil then recommended that she consult an oncologist to examine the cancerous nodes which were not removed during the operation.

On May 9, 1984, Natividad, accompanied by her husband, went to the United States to seek further treatment. After four months of consultations and laboratory examinations, Natividad was told she was free of cancer. Hence, she was advised to return to the Philippines.

On August 31, 1984, Natividad flew back to the Philippines, still suffering from pains. Two weeks thereafter, her daughter found a piece of gauze protruding from her vagina. Upon being informed about it, Dr. Ampil proceeded to her house where he managed to extract by hand a piece of gauze measuring 1.5 inches in width. He then assured her that the pains would soon vanish.

Dr. Ampil’s assurance did not come true. Instead, the pains intensified, prompting Natividad to seek treatment at the Polymedic General Hospital. While confined there, Dr. Ramon Gutierrez detected the presence of another foreign object in her vagina -- a foul-smelling gauze measuring 1.5 inches in width which badly infected her vaginal vault. A recto-vaginal fistula had formed in her reproductive organs which forced stool to excrete through the vagina. Another surgical operation was needed to remedy the damage. Thus, in October 1984, Natividad underwent another surgery.

Page 4 of 35

On November 12, 1984, Natividad and her husband filed with the RTC, Branch 96, Quezon City a complaint for damages against the Professional Services, Inc. (PSI), owner of the Medical City Hospital, Dr. Ampil, and Dr. Fuentes, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-43322. They alleged that the latter are liable for negligence for leaving two pieces of gauze inside Natividad’s body and malpractice for concealing their acts of negligence.

Meanwhile, Enrique Agana also filed with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) an administrative complaint for gross negligence and malpractice against Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes, docketed as Administrative Case No. 1690. The PRC Board of Medicine heard the case only with respect to Dr. Fuentes because it failed to acquire jurisdiction over Dr. Ampil who was then in the United States.

On February 16, 1986, pending the outcome of the above cases, Natividad died and was duly substituted by her above-named children (the Aganas).

On March 17, 1993, the RTC rendered its Decision in favor of the Aganas, finding PSI, Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes liable for negligence and malpractice.

On January 24, 1994, CA-G.R. SP No. 32198 was consolidated with CA-G.R. CV No. 42062.

Meanwhile, on January 23, 1995, the PRC Board of Medicine rendered its Decision6 in Administrative Case No. 1690 dismissing the case against Dr. Fuentes. The Board held that the prosecution failed to show that Dr. Fuentes was the one who left the two pieces of gauze inside Natividad’s body; and that he concealed such fact from Natividad.

On September 6, 1996, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision jointly disposing of CA-G.R. CV No. 42062 and CA-G.R. SP No. 32198, thus:

WHEREFORE, except for the modification that the case against defendant-appellant Dr. Juan Fuentes is hereby DISMISSED, and with the pronouncement that defendant-appellant Dr. Miguel Ampil is liable to reimburse defendant-appellant Professional Services, Inc., whatever amount the latter will pay or had paid to the plaintiffs-appellees, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED and the instant appeal DISMISSED.

Hence, the instant consolidated petitions.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding Dr. Ampil liable for negligence and malpractice; 2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in absolving Dr. Fuentes of any liability; and 3. Whether PSI may be held solidarily liable for the negligence of Dr. Ampil.

HELD:

On the 1st Issue:

This is a clear case of medical malpractice or more appropriately, medical negligence. To successfully pursue this kind of case, a patient must only prove that a health care provider either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that failure or action caused injury to the patient.11 Simply put, the elements are duty, breach, injury and proximate causation. Dr, Ampil, as the lead surgeon, had the duty to remove all foreign objects, such as gauzes, from Natividad’s body before closure of the incision. When he failed to do so, it was his duty to inform Natividad about it. Dr. Ampil breached both duties. Such breach caused injury to Natividad,

Page 5 of 35

necessitating her further examination by American doctors and another surgery. That Dr. Ampil’s negligence is the proximate cause 12 of Natividad’s injury could be traced from his act of closing the incision despite the information given by the attending nurses that two pieces of gauze were still missing. That they were later on extracted from Natividad’s vagina established the causal link between Dr. Ampil’s negligence and the injury. And what further aggravated such injury was his deliberate concealment of the missing gauzes from the knowledge of Natividad and her family.

On the 2nd Issue:

Literally, res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself." It is the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation. 13

Stated differently, where the thing which caused the injury, without the fault of the injured, is under the exclusive control of the defendant and the injury is such that it should not have occurred if he, having such control used proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation that the injury arose from the defendant’s want of care, and the burden of proof is shifted to him to establish that he has observed due care and diligence.14

From the foregoing statements of the rule, the requisites for the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are: (1) the occurrence of an injury; (2) the thing which caused the injury was under the control and management of the defendant; (3) the occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things, would not have happened if those who had control or management used proper care; and (4) the absence of explanation by the defendant. Of the foregoing requisites, the most instrumental is the "control and management of the thing which caused the injury."15

We find the element of "control and management of the thing which caused the injury" to be wanting. Hence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will not lie.

It was duly established that Dr. Ampil was the lead surgeon during the operation of Natividad. He requested the assistance of Dr. Fuentes only to perform hysterectomy when he (Dr. Ampil) found that the malignancy in her sigmoid area had spread to her left ovary. Dr. Fuentes performed the surgery and thereafter reported and showed his work to Dr. Ampil. The latter examined it and finding everything to be in order, allowed Dr. Fuentes to leave the operating room. Dr. Ampil then resumed operating on Natividad. He was about to finish the procedure when the attending nurses informed him that two pieces of gauze were missing. A "diligent search" was conducted, but the misplaced gauzes were not found. Dr. Ampil then directed that the incision be closed. During this entire period, Dr. Fuentes was no longer in the operating room and had, in fact, left the hospital.

Under the "Captain of the Ship" rule, the operating surgeon is the person in complete charge of the surgery room and all personnel connected with the operation. Their duty is to obey his orders.16 As stated before, Dr. Ampil was the lead surgeon. In other words, he was the "Captain of the Ship." That he discharged such role is evident from his following conduct: (1) calling Dr. Fuentes to perform a hysterectomy; (2) examining the work of Dr. Fuentes and finding it in order; (3) granting Dr. Fuentes’ permission to leave; and (4) ordering the closure of the incision. To our mind, it was this act of ordering the closure of the incision notwithstanding that two pieces of gauze remained unaccounted for, that caused injury to Natividad’s body. Clearly, the control and management of the thing which caused the injury was in the hands of Dr. Ampil, not Dr. Fuentes.

On the 3rd Issue:

The case of Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital26 was then considered an authority for this view. The "Schloendorff doctrine" regards a physician, even if employed by a hospital, as an independent contractor because of the skill he exercises and the lack of control exerted over his work. Under this doctrine, hospitals are exempt

Page 6 of 35

from the application of the respondeat superior principle for fault or negligence committed by physicians in the discharge of their profession.

However, the efficacy of the foregoing doctrine has weakened with the significant developments in medical care. Courts came to realize that modern hospitals are increasingly taking active role in supplying and regulating medical care to patients. No longer were a hospital’s functions limited to furnishing room, food, facilities for treatment and operation, and attendants for its patients. Thus, in Bing v. Thunig, 27 the New York Court of Appeals deviated from the Schloendorff doctrine, noting that modern hospitals actually do far more than provide facilities for treatment. Rather, they regularly employ, on a salaried basis, a large staff of physicians, interns, nurses, administrative and manual workers. They charge patients for medical care and treatment, even collecting for such services through legal action, if necessary. The court then concluded that there is no reason to exempt hospitals from the universal rule of respondeat superior.

In our shores, the nature of the relationship between the hospital and the physicians is rendered inconsequential in view of our categorical pronouncement in Ramos v. Court of Appeals 28 that for purposes of apportioning responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians.

In other words, private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control over their attending and visiting ‘consultant’ staff. While ‘consultants’ are not, technically employees, x x x, the control exercised, the hiring, and the right to terminate consultants all fulfill the important hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship, with the exception of the payment of wages. In assessing whether such a relationship in fact exists, the control test is determining. Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, we rule that for the purpose of allocating responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians. "

But the Ramos pronouncement is not our only basis in sustaining PSI’s liability. Its liability is also anchored upon the agency principle of apparent authority or agency by estoppel and the doctrine of corporate negligence which have gained acceptance in the determination of a hospital’s liability for negligent acts of health professionals. The present case serves as a perfect platform to test the applicability of these doctrines, thus, enriching our jurisprudence.

Apparent authority, or what is sometimes referred to as the "holding out" theory, or doctrine of ostensible agency or agency by estoppel,29 has its origin from the law of agency. It imposes liability, not as the result of the reality of a contractual relationship, but rather because of the actions of a principal or an employer in somehow misleading the public into believing that the relationship or the authority exists.30 The concept is essentially one of estoppel and has been explained in this manner:

"The principal is bound by the acts of his agent with the apparent authority which he knowingly permits the agent to assume, or which he holds the agent out to the public as possessing. The question in every case is whether the principal has by his voluntary act placed the agent in such a situation that a person of ordinary prudence, conversant with business usages and the nature of the particular business, is justified in presuming that such agent has authority to perform the particular act in question. 31

In this case, PSI publicly displays in the lobby of the Medical City Hospital the names and specializations of the physicians associated or accredited by it, including those of Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes. We concur with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that it "is now estopped from passing all the blame to the physicians whose names it proudly paraded in the public directory leading the public to believe that it vouched for their skill and competence." Indeed, PSI’s act is tantamount to holding out to the public that Medical City Hospital, through its accredited physicians, offers quality health care services. By accrediting Dr. Ampil and Dr. Fuentes and publicly advertising their qualifications, the hospital created the impression that they were its agents, authorized to perform medical

Page 7 of 35

or surgical services for its patients. As expected, these patients, Natividad being one of them, accepted the services on the reasonable belief that such were being rendered by the hospital or its employees, agents, or servants.

The high costs of today’s medical and health care should at least exact on the hospital greater, if not broader, legal responsibility for the conduct of treatment and surgery within its facility by its accredited physician or surgeon, regardless of whether he is independent or employed."33

We now proceed to the doctrine of corporate negligence or corporate responsibility.

In the present case, it was duly established that PSI operates the Medical City Hospital for the purpose and under the concept of providing comprehensive medical services to the public. Accordingly, it has the duty to exercise reasonable care to protect from harm all patients admitted into its facility for medical treatment. Unfortunately, PSI failed to perform such duty. The findings of the trial court are convincing, thus:

x x x PSI’s liability is traceable to its failure to conduct an investigation of the matter reported in the nota bene of the count nurse. Such failure established PSI’s part in the dark conspiracy of silence and concealment about the gauzes. Ethical considerations, if not also legal, dictated the holding of an immediate inquiry into the events, if not for the benefit of the patient to whom the duty is primarily owed, then in the interest of arriving at the truth. The Court cannot accept that the medical and the healing professions, through their members like defendant surgeons, and their institutions like PSI’s hospital facility, can callously turn their backs on and disregard even a mere probability of mistake or negligence by refusing or failing to investigate a report of such seriousness as the one in Natividad’s case.

Not only did PSI breach its duties to oversee or supervise all persons who practice medicine within its walls, it also failed to take an active step in fixing the negligence committed. This renders PSI, not only vicariously liable for the negligence of Dr. Ampil under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, but also directly liable for its own negligence under Article 2176.

Anent the corollary issue of whether PSI is solidarily liable with Dr. Ampil for damages, let it be emphasized that PSI, apart from a general denial of its responsibility, failed to adduce evidence showing that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the accreditation and supervision of the latter. In neglecting to offer such proof, PSI failed to discharge its burden under the last paragraph of Article 2180 cited earlier, and, therefore, must be adjudged solidarily liable with Dr. Ampil. Moreover, as we have discussed, PSI is also directly liable to the Aganas.

3. Cruz v. CCA and Umali

FACTS:

Lydia was examined by the petitioner who found a "myoma" 10 in her uterus, and scheduled her for a hysterectomy operation on March 23,1991. 11 Problems occurred during the operation and because the hospital has inadequate facilities to address the same, Lydia was transferred to San Pablo District Hospital where she died.

The petitioner and one Dr. Lina Ercillo who was the attending anaesthesiologist during the operation of the deceased were charged with "reckless imprudence and negligence resulting to (sic) homicide."

MTCC absolved Ercillo of liability due to insufficiency of evidence but found Cruz guilty of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. RTC and CA affirmed the decision of MTCC.

ISSUE:

Page 8 of 35

WON petitioner's conviction of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, arising from an alleged medical malpractice, is supported by the evidence on record.

HELD:

This Court, however, holds differently and finds the foregoing circumstances insufficient to sustain a judgment of conviction against the petitioner for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The elements of reckless imprudence are: (1) that the offender does or fails to do an act; (2) that the doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary; (3) that it be without malice; (4) that material damage results from the reckless imprudence; and (5) that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

Whether or not a physician has committed an "inexcusable lack of precaution" in the treatment of his patient is to be determined according to the standard of care observed by other members of the profession in good standing under similar circumstances bearing in mind the advanced state of the profession at the time of treatment or the present state of medical science. 26 In the recent case of Leonila Garcia-Rueda v. Wilfred L. Pascasio, et al., 27 this Court stated that in accepting a case, a doctor in effect represents that, having the needed training and skill possessed by physicians and surgeons practicing in the same field, he will employ such training, care and skill in the treatment of his patients. He therefore has a duty to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstances. It is in this aspect of medical malpractice that expert testimony is essential to establish not only the standard of care of the profession but also that the physician's conduct in the treatment and care falls below such standard. 28 Further, inasmuch as the causes of the injuries involved in malpractice actions are determinable only in the light of scientific knowledge, it has been recognized that expert testimony is usually necessary to support the conclusion as to causation. 29

Immediately apparent from a review of the records of this case is the absence of any expert testimony on the matter of the standard of care employed by other physicians of good standing in the conduct of similar operations. The prosecution's expert witnesses in the persons of Dr. Floresto Arizala and Dr. Nieto Salvador, Jr. of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) only testified as to the possible cause of death but did not venture to illuminate the court on the matter of the standard of care that petitioner should have exercised.

All three courts below bewail the inadequacy of the facilities of the clinic and its untidiness; the lack of provisions such as blood, oxygen, and certain medicines; the failure to subject the patient to a cardio-pulmonary test prior to the operation; the omission of any form of blood typing before transfusion; and even the subsequent transfer of Lydia to the San Pablo Hospital and the reoperation performed on her by the petitioner. But while it may be true that the circumstances pointed out by the courts below seemed beyond cavil to constitute reckless imprudence on the part of the surgeon, this conclusion is still best arrived at not through the educated surmises nor conjectures of laymen, including judges, but by the unquestionable knowledge of expert witnesses. For whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of his patient is, in the generality of cases, a matter of expert opinion. 30 The deference of courts to the expert opinion of qualified physicians stems from its realization that the latter possess unusual technical skills which laymen in most instances are incapable of intelligently evaluating. 31 Expert testimony should have been offered to prove that the circumstances cited by the courts below are constitutive of conduct falling below the standard of care employed by other physicians in good standing when performing the same operation. It must be remembered that when the qualifications of a physician are admitted, as in the instant case, there is an inevitable presumption that in proper cases he takes the necessary precaution and employs the best of his knowledge and skill in attending to his clients, unless the contrary is sufficiently established. 32 This presumption is rebuttable by expert opinion which is so sadly lacking in the case at bench.

Even granting arguendo that the inadequacy of the facilities and untidiness of the clinic; the lack of provisions; the failure to conduct pre-operation tests on the patient; and the subsequent transfer of Lydia to the San Pablo

Page 9 of 35

Hospital and the reoperation performed on her by the petitioner do indicate, even without expert testimony, that petitioner was recklessly imprudent in the exercise of her duties as a surgeon, no cogent proof exists that any of these circumstances caused petitioner's death. Thus, the absence of the fourth element of reckless imprudence: that the injury to the person or property was a consequence of the reckless imprudence.

On the other hand, the findings of all three doctors do not preclude the probability that DIC caused the hemorrhage and consequently, Lydia's death. DIC which is a clotting defect creates a serious bleeding tendency and when massive DIC occurs as a complication of surgery leaving raw surface, major hemorrhage occurs. 4

This Court has no recourse but to rely on the expert testimonies rendered by both prosecution and defense witnesses that substantiate rather than contradict petitioner's allegation that the cause of Lydia's death was DIC which, as attested to by an expert witness, cannot be attributed to the petitioner's fault or negligence. The probability that Lydia's death was caused by DIC was unrebutted during trial and has engendered in the mind of this Court a reasonable doubt as to the petitioner's guilt. Thus, her acquittal of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. While we condole with the family of Lydia Umali, our hands are bound by the dictates of justice and fair dealing which hold inviolable the right of an accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, this Court finds the petitioner civilly liable for the death of Lydia Umali, for while a conviction of a crime requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, only a preponderance of evidence is required to establish civil liability. 45

4. Flores v. United Medical Doctors

FACTS:

Pineda went to the clinic of Dr. Fredelicto Flores complaining of vaginal bleeding. When Dr. Fredelicto arrived, he did a routine check-up and ordered Teresita's admission to the hospital. In the admission slip, he directed the hospital staff to prepare the patient for an "on call" D&C5 operation to be performed by his wife, Dr. Felicisima Flores (Dr. Felicisima). Teresita was brought to her hospital room at around 12 noon; the hospital staff forthwith took her blood and urine samples for the laboratory tests6 which Dr. Fredelicto ordered.

He then referred Pineda to his wife Dr. Felicisima Flores, an obstetrician and gynaecologist, for a D&C operation. Without waiting for the full report of the laboratory tests, the doctors proceeded with said operation despite Dr. Fredelicto’s suspicion that Pineda has Diabetes Milletus.

A day after the operation (or on April 29, 1987), Teresita was subjected to an ultrasound examination as a confirmatory procedure. The results showed that she had an enlarged uterus and myoma uteri.9 Dr. Felicisima, however, advised Teresita that she could spend her recovery period at home. Still feeling weak, Teresita opted for hospital confinement.

By April 30, 1987, Teresita's condition had worsened. She experienced difficulty in breathing and was rushed to the intensive care unit. Further tests confirmed that she was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus Type II.10 Insulin was administered on the patient, but the medication might have arrived too late. Due to complications induced by diabetes, Teresita died in the morning of May 6, 1987.11

The family of Pineda filed a case of medical negligence with the RTC against the spouses Flores.

RTC and CA ruled in favour of the defendants.

ISSUE:

Page 10 of 35

Whether the decision to proceed with the D&C operation was an honest mistake of judgment or one amounting to negligence.

HELD:

A medical negligence case is a type of claim to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional, that has caused bodily harm to or the death of a patient. There are four elements involved in a medical negligence case, namely: duty, breach, injury, and proximate causation.14

Duty refers to the standard of behavior which imposes restrictions on one's conduct.15 The standard in turn refers to the amount of competence associated with the proper discharge of the profession. A physician is expected to use at least the same level of care that any other reasonably competent doctor would use under the same circumstances. Breach of duty occurs when the physician fails to comply with these professional standards. If injury results to the patient as a result of this breach, the physician is answerable for negligence.16

As in any civil action, the burden to prove the existence of the necessary elements rests with the plaintiff. 17 To successfully pursue a claim, the plaintiff must prove by preponderance of evidence that, one, the physician either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and two, the failure or action caused injury to the patient.18 Expert testimony is therefore essential since the factual issue of whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of his patient is generally a matter of expert opinion.19

The petitioner spouses' contentions, in our view, miss several points. First, as early as April 17, 1987, Teresita was already suspected to be suffering from diabetes.25 This suspicion again arose right before the D&C operation on April 28, 1987 when the laboratory result revealed Teresita's increased blood sugar level. 26 Unfortunately, the petitioner spouses did not wait for the full medical laboratory results before proceeding with the D&C, a fact that was never considered in the courts below. Second, the petitioner spouses were duly advised that the patient was experiencing general body weakness, loss of appetite, frequent urination, and thirst - all of which are classic symptoms of diabetes.27 When a patient exhibits symptoms typical of a particular disease, these symptoms should, at the very least, alert the physician of the possibility that the patient may be afflicted with the suspected disease:

Expert testimony for the plaintiff showed that] tests should have been ordered immediately on admission to the hospital in view of the symptoms presented, and that failure to

recognize the existence of diabetes constitutes negligence.28

Third, the petitioner spouses cannot claim that their principal concern was the vaginal bleeding and should not therefore be held accountable for complications coming from other sources. This is a very narrow and self-serving view that even reflects on their competence.

Taken together, we find that reasonable prudence would have shown that diabetes and its complications were foreseeable harm that should have been taken into consideration by the petitioner spouses. If a patient suffers from some disability that increases the magnitude of risk to him, that disability must be taken into account so long as it is or should have been known to the physician.29 And when the patient is exposed to an increased risk, it is incumbent upon the physician to take commensurate and adequate precautions.

Taking into account Teresita's high blood sugar,30 Dr. Mendoza opined that the attending physician should have postponed the D&C operation in order to conduct a confirmatory test to make a conclusive diagnosis of diabetes and to refer the case to an internist or diabetologist. This was corroborated by Dr. Delfin Tan ( Dr. Tan), an obstetrician and gynecologist, who stated that the patient's diabetes should have been managed by an internist prior to, during, and after the operation.31

Page 11 of 35

Apart from bleeding as a complication of pregnancy, vaginal bleeding is only rarely so heavy and life-threatening that urgent first-aid measures are required.32 Indeed, the expert witnesses declared that a D&C operation on a hyperglycemic patient may be justified only when it is an emergency case - when there is profuse vaginal bleeding. In this case, we choose not to rely on the assertions of the petitioner spouses that there was profuse bleeding, not only because the statements were self-serving, but also because the petitioner spouses were inconsistent in their testimonies. Dr. Fredelicto testified earlier that on April 28, he personally saw the bleeding,33 but later on said that he did not see it and relied only on Teresita's statement that she was bleeding.34 He went on to state that he scheduled the D&C operation without conducting any physical examination on the patient.

The likely story is that although Teresita experienced vaginal bleeding on April 28, it was not sufficiently profuse to necessitate an immediate emergency D&C operation. Dr. Tan35 and Dr. Mendoza36 both testified that the medical records of Teresita failed to indicate that there was profuse vaginal bleeding. The claim that there was profuse vaginal bleeding although this was not reflected in the medical records strikes us as odd since the main complaint is vaginal bleeding. A medical record is the only document that maintains a long-term transcription of patient care and as such, its maintenance is considered a priority in hospital practice. Optimal record-keeping includes all patient inter-actions. The records should always be clear, objective, and up-to-date.37 Thus, a medical record that does not indicate profuse medical bleeding speaks loudly and clearly of what it does not contain.

That the D&C operation was conducted principally to diagnose the cause of the vaginal bleeding further leads us to conclude that it was merely an elective procedure, not an emergency case. In an elective procedure, the physician must conduct a thorough pre-operative evaluation of the patient in order to adequately prepare her for the operation and minimize possible risks and complications. The internist is responsible for generating a comprehensive evaluation of all medical problems during the pre-operative evaluation.38

Significantly, the evidence strongly suggests that the pre-operative evaluation was less than complete as the laboratory results were fully reported only on the day following the D&C operation. Dr. Felicisima only secured a telephone report of the preliminary laboratory result prior to the D&C. This preliminary report did not include the 3+ status of sugar in the patient's urine40 - a result highly confirmatory of diabetes.

The prudent move is to address the patient's hyperglycemic state immediately and promptly before any other procedure is undertaken. In this case, there was no evidence that insulin was administered on Teresita prior to or during the D&C operation. Insulin was only administered two days after the operation.

Stress, whether physical or emotional, is a factor that can aggravate diabetes; a D&C operation is a form of physical stress. Dr. Mendoza explained how surgical stress can aggravate the patient's hyperglycemia: when stress occurs, the diabetic's body, especially the autonomic system, reacts by secreting hormones which are counter-regulatory; she can have prolonged hyperglycemia which, if unchecked, could lead to death.48 Medical literature further explains that if the blood sugar has become very high, the patient becomes comatose (diabetic coma). When this happens over several days, the body uses its own fat to produce energy, and the result is high levels of waste products (called ketones) in the blood and urine (called diabetic ketoacidiosis, a medical emergency with a significant mortality).49 This was apparently what happened in Teresita's case; in fact, after she had been referred to the internist Dr. Jorge, laboratory test showed that her blood sugar level shot up to 14.0mmol/l, way above the normal blood sugar range. Thus, between the D&C and death was the diabetic complication that could have been prevented with the observance of standard medical precautions. The D&C operation and Teresita's death due to aggravated diabetic condition is therefore sufficiently established.

CONCLUSION:

These findings lead us to the conclusion that the decision to proceed with the D&C operation, notwithstanding Teresita's hyperglycemia and without adequately preparing her for the procedure, was contrary to the standards observed by the medical profession. Deviation from this standard amounted to a breach of duty which resulted in the patient's death. Due to this negligent conduct, liability must attach to the petitioner spouses.

Page 12 of 35

5. Solidum v. People

FACTS:

A three year old boy went a pull through operation for having imperforate anus at the Ospital ng Maynila. One of the doctors who treated him was the anaesthesiologist Dr. Solidum. During the operation, the boy experienced bradycardia resulting in the failure of the oxygen to enter the boy’s brain. The boy then went into a coma. When he finally awoke, however, the parents found out that he could no longer see, hear or move.

As such, the parents filed a case of Reckless Imprudence resulting to Serious Physical Injuries against Dr. Solidum. The RTC fund the doctor guilty of the same. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision stating that the case is textbook example of res ipsa loquitur, wherein the basis of the doctor’s negligence is his failure to properly monitor the levels of anaesthesia being administered on the boy during the operation which led to the injury suffered by the latter.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable herein; and 2. Whether or not Dr. Solidum was liable for criminal negligence.

HELD:

On the 1st Issue:

Res ipsa loquitur is literally translated as "the thing or the transaction speaks for itself." The doctrine res ipsa loquitur means that "where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care."24 It is simply "a recognition of the postulate that, as a matter of common knowledge and experience, the very nature of certain types of occurrences may justify an inference of negligence on the part of the person who controls the instrumentality causing the injury in the absence of some explanation by the defendant who is charged with negligence. It is grounded in the superior logic of ordinary human experience and on the basis of such experience or common knowledge, negligence may be deduced from the mere occurrence of the accident itself.

Hence, res ipsa loquitur is applied in conjunction with the doctrine of common knowledge."25

In order to allow resort to the doctrine, therefore, the following essential requisites must first be satisfied, to wit: (1) the accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency that caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged; and (3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution of the person injured.29

The Court considers the application here of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur inappropriate. Although it should be conceded without difficulty that the second and third elements were present, considering that the anesthetic agent and the instruments were exclusively within the control of Dr. Solidum, and that the patient, being then unconscious during the operation, could not have been guilty of contributory negligence, the first element was undeniably wanting. Luz delivered Gerald to the care, custody and control of his physicians for a pull-through operation. Except for the imperforate anus, Gerald was then of sound body and mind at the time of his submission to the physicians. Yet, he experienced bradycardia during the operation, causing loss of his senses and rendering him immobile. Hypoxia, or the insufficiency of oxygen supply to the brain that caused the slowing of the heart rate, scientifically termed as bradycardia, would not ordinarily occur in the process of a pull-through operation, or

Page 13 of 35

during the administration of anesthesia to the patient, but such fact alone did not prove that the negligence of any of his attending physicians, including the anesthesiologists, had caused the injury. In fact, the anesthesiologists attending to him had sensed in the course of the operation that the lack of oxygen could have been triggered by the vago-vagal reflex, prompting them to administer atropine to the patient.30

The evidence presented is insufficient to establish the first element necessary for application of res ipsa loquitur doctrine. The acute closing of the patient’s air passage and his resultant asphyxiation took place over a very short period of time. Under these circumstances it would not be reasonable to infer that the physician was negligent. There was no palpably negligent act. The common experience of mankind does not suggest that death would not be expected without negligence. And there is no expert medical testimony to create an inference that negligence caused the injury.

On the 2nd Issue:

Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance that the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.32 Reckless imprudence, on the other hand, consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do, without malice, an act from which material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act.33

Dr. Solidum’s conviction by the RTC was primarily based on his failure to monitor and properly regulate the level of anesthetic agent administered on Gerald by overdosing at 100% halothane. In affirming the conviction, the CA observed:

On the witness stand, Dr. Vertido made a significant turnaround. He affirmed the findings and conclusions in his report except for an observation which, to all intents and purposes, has become the storm center of this dispute. He wanted to correct one piece of information regarding the dosage of the anesthetic agent administered to the child. He declared that he made a mistake in reporting a 100% halothane and said that based on the records it should have been 100% oxygen.

The implication of Dr. Vertido’s admission is that there was no overdose of the anesthetic agent, and the accused Dr. Solidum stakes his liberty and reputation on this conclusion. He made the assurance that he gave his patient the utmost medical care, never leaving the operating room except for a few minutes to answer the call of nature but leaving behind the other members of his team Drs. Abella and Razon to monitor the operation. He insisted that he administered only a point 1% not 100% halothane, receiving corroboration from Dr. Abella whose initial MA in the record should be enough to show that she assisted in the operation and was therefore conversant of the things that happened. She revealed that they were using a machine that closely monitored the concentration of the agent during the operation.

An action upon medical negligence – whether criminal, civil or administrative – calls for the plaintiff to prove by competent evidence each of the following four elements, namely: (a) the duty owed by the physician to the patient, as created by the physician-patient relationship, to act in accordance with the specific norms or standards established by his profession; (b) the breach of the duty by the physician’s failing to act in accordance with the applicable standard of care; (3) the causation, i.e., there must be a reasonably close and causal connection between the negligent act or omission and the resulting injury; and (4) the damages suffered by the patient.36

Here, the Prosecution presented no witnesses with special medical qualifications in anesthesia to provide guidance to the trial court on what standard of care was applicable. It would consequently be truly difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether the first three elements of a negligence and malpractice action were attendant.

Page 14 of 35

Although the Prosecution presented Dr. Benigno Sulit, Jr., an anesthesiologist himself who served as the Chairman of the Committee on Ethics and Malpractice of the Philippine Society of Anesthesiologists that investigated the complaint against Dr. Solidum, his testimony mainly focused on how his Committee had conducted the investigation.39 Even then, the report of his Committee was favorable to Dr. Solidum,40 to wit:

x x x x

In view of the actuations of the anaesthesiologists and the administration of anaesthesia, the committee find that the same were all in accordance with the universally accepted standards of medical care and there is no evidence of any fault or negligence on the part of the anaesthesiologists.

At the continuation of his cross-examination, Dr. Vertido maintained that Gerald’s operation for his imperforate anus, considered a major operation, had exposed him to the risk of suffering the same condition.43 He then corrected his earlier finding that 100% halothane had been administered on Gerald by saying that it should be 100% oxygen.44

Dr. Solidum was criminally charged for "failing to monitor and regulate properly the levels of anesthesia administered to said Gerald Albert Gercayo and using 100% halothane and other anesthetic medications."45 However, the foregoing circumstances, taken together, did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Dr. Solidum had been recklessly imprudent in administering the anesthetic agent to Gerald. Indeed, Dr. Vertido’s findings did not preclude the probability that other factors related to Gerald’s major operation, which could or could not necessarily be attributed to the administration of the anesthesia, had caused the hypoxia and had then led Gerald to experience bradycardia. Dr. Vertido revealingly concluded in his report, instead, that "although the anesthesiologist followed the normal routine and precautionary procedures, still hypoxia and its corresponding side effects did occur."46

The existence of the probability about other factors causing the hypoxia has engendered in the mind of the Court a reasonable doubt as to Dr. Solidum’s guilt, and moves us to acquit him of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries. "A reasonable doubt of guilt," according to United States v. Youthsey:47

We have to clarify that the acquittal of Dr. Solidum would not immediately exempt him from civil liability.1âwphi1 But we cannot now find and declare him civilly liable because the circumstances that have been established here do not present the factual and legal bases for validly doing so. His acquittal did not derive only from reasonable doubt. There was really no firm and competent showing how the injury to Gerard had been caused. That meant that the manner of administration of the anesthesia by Dr. Solidum was not necessarily the cause of the hypoxia that caused the bradycardia experienced by Gerard. Consequently, to adjudge Dr. Solidum civilly liable would be to speculate on the cause of the hypoxia. We are not allowed to do so, for civil liability must not rest on speculation but on competent evidence.

Liability of Ospita ng Maynila

Although the result now reached has resolved the issue of civil liability, we have to address the unusual decree of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, of expressly holding Ospital ng Maynila civilly liable jointly and severally with Dr. Solidum. The decree was flawed in logic and in law.

x x x It is puzzling, therefore, how the RTC and the CA could have adjudged Ospital ng Maynila jointly and severally liable with Dr. Solidum for the damages despite the obvious fact that Ospital ng Maynila, being an artificial entity, had not been charged along with Dr. Solidum. The lower courts thereby acted capriciously and whimsically, which rendered their judgment against Ospital ng Maynila void as the product of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

Page 15 of 35

Moreover, Ospital ng Maynila could be held civilly liable only when subsidiary liability would be properly enforceable pursuant to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. But the subsidiary liability seems far-fetched here. The conditions for subsidiary liability to attach to Ospital ng Maynila should first be complied with. Firstly, pursuant to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, Ospital ng Maynila must be shown to be a corporation "engaged in any kind of industry." The term industry means any department or branch of art, occupation or business, especially one that employs labor and capital, and is engaged in industry.49 However, Ospital ng Maynila, being a public hospital, was not engaged in industry conducted for profit but purely in charitable and humanitarian work.50 Secondly, assuming that Ospital ng Maynila was engaged in industry for profit, Dr. Solidum must be shown to be an employee of Ospital ng Maynila acting in the discharge of his duties during the operation on Gerald. Yet, he definitely was not such employee but a consultant of the hospital. And, thirdly, assuming that civil liability was adjudged against Dr. Solidum as an employee (which did not happen here), the execution against him was unsatisfied due to his being insolvent.

6. Cayao-Lasam v. Sps. Ramolete

FACTS:

On July 28, 1994, respondent, three months pregnant Editha Ramolete (Editha) was brought to the Lorma Medical Center (LMC) in San Fernando, La Union due to vaginal bleeding. Upon advice of petitioner relayed via telephone, Editha was admitted to the LMC on the same day. A pelvic sonogram2 was then conducted on Editha revealing the fetus’ weak cardiac pulsation.3 The following day, Editha’s repeat pelvic sonogram4 showed that aside from the fetus’ weak cardiac pulsation, no fetal movement was also appreciated. Due to persistent and profuse vaginal bleeding, petitioner advised Editha to undergo a Dilatation and Curettage Procedure (D&C) or "raspa."

On July 30, 1994, petitioner performed the D&C procedure. Editha was discharged from the hospital the following day.

On September 16, 1994, Editha was once again brought at the LMC, as she was suffering from vomiting and severe abdominal pains. Editha was attended by Dr. Beatriz de la Cruz, Dr. Victor B. Mayo and Dr. Juan V. Komiya. Dr. Mayo allegedly informed Editha that there was a dead fetus in the latter’s womb. After, Editha underwent laparotomy,5 she was found to have a massive intra-abdominal hemorrhage and a ruptured uterus. Thus, Editha had to undergo a procedure for hysterectomy6 and as a result, she has no more chance to bear a child.

On November 7, 1994, Editha and her husband Claro Ramolete (respondents) filed a Complaint7 for Gross Negligence and Malpractice against petitioner before the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC).

Respondents alleged that Editha’s hysterectomy was caused by petitioner’s unmitigated negligence and professional incompetence in conducting the D&C procedure and the petitioner’s failure to remove the fetus inside Editha’s womb.8 Among the alleged acts of negligence were: first, petitioner’s failure to check up, visit or administer medication on Editha during her first day of confinement at the LMC;9 second, petitioner recommended that a D&C procedure be performed on Editha without conducting any internal examination prior to the procedure;10 third, petitioner immediately suggested a D&C procedure instead of closely monitoring the state of pregnancy of Editha.11

Petitioner contended that it was Editha’s gross negligence and/or omission in insisting to be discharged on July 31, 1994 against doctor’s advice and her unjustified failure to return for check-up as directed by petitioner that contributed to her life-threatening condition on September 16, 1994; that Editha’s hysterectomy was brought about by her very abnormal pregnancy known as placenta increta, which was an extremely rare and very unusual case of abdominal placental implantation. Petitioner argued that whether or not a D&C procedure was done by her or any other doctor, there would be no difference at all because at any stage of gestation before term, the uterus would rupture just the same.

Page 16 of 35

On March 4, 1999, the Board of Medicine (the Board) of the PRC rendered a Decision,14 exonerating petitioner from the charges filed against her.

Feeling aggrieved, respondents went to the PRC on appeal. On November 22, 2000, the PRC rendered a Decision 16

reversing the findings of the Board and revoking petitioner’s authority or license to practice her profession as a physician.17

CA dismissed the case due to procedural defects.

ISSUES:

7. PRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REVOKING PETITIONER’S LICENSE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE WITHOUT AN EXPERT TESTIMONY TO SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION AS TO THE CAUSE OF RESPONDENT EDITHAT [SIC] RAMOLETE’S INJURY;

8. PRC COMMITTED AN EVEN GRAVER ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE FINDING OF THE BOARD OF MEDICINE, WHICH HAD THE NECESSARY COMPETENCE AND EXPERTISE TO ESTABLISH THE CAUSE OF RESPONDENT EDITHA’S INJURY, AS WELL AS THE TESTIMONY OF THE EXPERT WITNESS AUGUSTO MANALO, M.D. ;[and]

9. PRC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN MAKING CONCLUSIONS OF FACTS THAT WERE NOT ONLY UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE BUT WERE ACTUALLY CONTRARY TO EVIDENCE ON RECORD.22

HELD:

Anent the substantive merits of the case, petitioner questions the PRC decision for being without an expert testimony to support its conclusion and to establish the cause of Editha’s injury. Petitioner avers that in cases of medical malpractice, expert testimony is necessary to support the conclusion as to the cause of the injury.41

Medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence which consists in the failure of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances.42 In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove that the physician or surgeon either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would not have done, and that the failure or action caused injury to the patient.43

There are four elements involved in medical negligence cases: duty, breach, injury and proximate causation.44

A physician-patient relationship was created when Editha employed the services of the petitioner. As Editha’s physician, petitioner was duty-bound to use at least the same level of care that any reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstances.45 The breach of these professional duties of skill and care, or their improper performance by a physician surgeon, whereby the patient is injured in body or in health, constitutes actionable malpractice.46 As to this aspect of medical malpractice, the determination of the reasonable level of care and the breach thereof, expert testimony is essential.47 Further, inasmuch as the causes of the injuries involved in malpractice actions are determinable only in the light of scientific knowledge, it has been recognized that expert testimony is usually necessary to support the conclusion as to causation.48

In the present case, respondents did not present any expert testimony to support their claim that petitioner failed to do something which a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would have done.

Petitioner, on the other hand, presented the testimony of Dr. Augusto M. Manalo, who was clearly an expert on the subject.

Page 17 of 35

Generally, to qualify as an expert witness, one must have acquired special knowledge of the subject matter about which he or she is to testify, either by the study of recognized authorities on the subject or by practical experience.49

Dr. Manalo specializes in gynecology and obstetrics, authored and co-authored various publications on the subject, and is a professor at the University of the Philippines.50 According to him, his diagnosis of Editha’s case was "Ectopic Pregnancy Interstitial (also referred to as Cornual), Ruptured."51 In stating that the D&C procedure was not the proximate cause of the rupture of Editha’s uterus resulting in her hysterectomy.

x x x

From the foregoing testimony, it is clear that the D&C procedure was conducted in accordance with the standard practice, with the same level of care that any reasonably competent doctor would use to treat a condition under the same circumstances, and that there was nothing irregular in the way the petitioner dealt with Editha.

Medical malpractice, in our jurisdiction, is often brought as a civil action for damages under Article 2176 54 of the Civil Code. The defenses in an action for damages, provided for under Article 2179 of the Civil Code are:

Art. 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.

Proximate cause has been defined as that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.55 An injury or damage is proximately caused by an act or a failure to act, whenever it appears from the evidence in the case that the act or omission played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damage; and that the injury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the act or omission.56

In the present case, the Court notes the findings of the Board of Medicine:

When complainant was discharged on July 31, 1994, herein respondent advised her to return on August 4, 1994 or four (4) days after the D&C. This advise was clear in complainant’s Discharge Sheet. However, complainant failed to do so. This being the case, the chain of continuity as required in order that the doctrine of proximate cause can be validly invoked was interrupted. Had she returned, the respondent could have examined her thoroughly.57 x x x (Emphases supplied)

Also, in the testimony of Dr. Manalo, he stated further that assuming that there was in fact a misdiagnosis, the same would have been rectified if Editha followed the petitioner’s order to return for a check-up on August 4, 1994. Dr. Manalo stated:

Granting that the obstetrician-gynecologist has been misled (justifiably) up to thus point that there would have been ample opportunity to rectify the misdiagnosis, had the patient returned, as instructed for her follow-up evaluation. It was one and a half months later that the patient sought consultation with another doctor. The continued growth of an ectopic pregnancy, until its eventual rupture, is a dynamic process. Much change in physical findings could be expected in 1 ½ months, including the emergence of suggestive ones.58

It is undisputed that Editha did not return for a follow-up evaluation, in defiance of the petitioner’s advise. Editha omitted the diligence required by the circumstances which could have avoided the injury. The omission in not returning for a follow-up evaluation played a substantial part in bringing about Editha’s own injury. Had Editha

Page 18 of 35

returned, petitioner could have conducted the proper medical tests and procedure necessary to determine Editha’s health condition and applied the corresponding treatment which could have prevented the rupture of Editha’s uterus. The D&C procedure having been conducted in accordance with the standard medical practice, it is clear that Editha’s omission was the proximate cause of her own injury and not merely a contributory negligence on her part.

Contributory negligence is the act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured, which, concurring with the defendant’s negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury.59 Difficulty seems to be apprehended in deciding which acts of the injured party shall be considered immediate causes of the accident.60 Where the immediate cause of an accident resulting in an injury is the plaintiff’s own act, which contributed to the principal occurrence as one of its determining factors, he cannot recover damages for the injury.61 Again, based on the evidence presented in the present case under review, in which no negligence can be attributed to the petitioner, the immediate cause of the accident resulting in Editha’s injury was her own omission when she did not return for a follow-up check up, in defiance of petitioner’s orders. The immediate cause of Editha’s injury was her own act; thus, she cannot recover damages from the injury.

7. Nogales v. Capitol Medical Center (CMC)

FACTS:

Pregnant with her fourth child, Corazon Nogales ("Corazon"), who was then 37 years old, was under the exclusive prenatal care of Dr. Oscar Estrada ("Dr. Estrada") beginning on her fourth month of pregnancy or as early as December 1975. While Corazon was on her last trimester of pregnancy, Dr. Estrada noted an increase in her blood pressure and development of leg edema5 indicating preeclampsia,6 which is a dangerous complication of pregnancy.7

Around midnight of 25 May 1976, Corazon started to experience mild labor pains prompting Corazon and Rogelio Nogales ("Spouses Nogales") to see Dr. Estrada at his home. After examining Corazon, Dr. Estrada advised her immediate admission to the Capitol Medical Center ("CMC").

At 6:22 a.m., Dr. Estrada, assisted by Dr. Villaflor, applied low forceps to extract Corazon's baby. In the process, a 1.0 x 2.5 cm. piece of cervical tissue was allegedly torn. The baby came out in an apnic, cyanotic, weak and injured condition. Consequently, the baby had to be intubated and resuscitated by Dr. Enriquez and Dr. Payumo.

At 6:27 a.m., Corazon began to manifest moderate vaginal bleeding which rapidly became profuse. Corazon's blood pressure dropped from 130/80 to 60/40 within five minutes. There was continuous profuse vaginal bleeding. The assisting nurse administered hemacel through a gauge 19 needle as a side drip to the ongoing intravenous injection of dextrose.

At 7:45 a.m., Dr. Estrada ordered blood typing and cross matching with bottled blood. It took approximately 30 minutes for the CMC laboratory, headed by Dr. Perpetua Lacson ("Dr. Lacson"), to comply with Dr. Estrada's order and deliver the blood.

At 8:00 a.m., Dr. Noe Espinola ("Dr. Espinola"), head of the Obstetrics-Gynecology Department of the CMC, was apprised of Corazon's condition by telephone. Upon being informed that Corazon was bleeding profusely, Dr. Espinola ordered immediate hysterectomy. Rogelio was made to sign a "Consent to Operation."13

Due to the inclement weather then, Dr. Espinola, who was fetched from his residence by an ambulance, arrived at the CMC about an hour later or at 9:00 a.m. He examined the patient and ordered some resuscitative measures to be administered. Despite Dr. Espinola's efforts, Corazon died at 9:15 a.m. The cause of death was "hemorrhage, post partum."14

Page 19 of 35

On 14 May 1980, petitioners filed a complaint for damages15 with the Regional Trial Court16 of Manila against CMC, Dr. Estrada, Dr. Villaflor, Dr. Uy, Dr. Enriquez, Dr. Lacson, Dr. Espinola, and a certain Nurse J. Dumlao for the death of Corazon. Petitioners mainly contended that defendant physicians and CMC personnel were negligent in the treatment and management of Corazon's condition. Petitioners charged CMC with negligence in the selection and supervision of defendant physicians and hospital staff.

After more than 11 years of trial, the trial court rendered judgment on 22 November 1993 finding Dr. Estrada solely liable for damages.

Petitioners appealed the trial court's decision. Petitioners claimed that aside from Dr. Estrada, the remaining respondents should be held equally liable for negligence. Petitioners pointed out the extent of each respondent's alleged liability.

On 6 February 1998, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.19 Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied in its Resolution of 21 March 2000.20

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Basically, the issue in this case is whether CMC is vicariously liable for the negligence of Dr. Estrada.

HELD:

In the present case, petitioners maintain that CMC, in allowing Dr. Estrada to practice and admit patients at CMC, should be liable for Dr. Estrada's malpractice. Rogelio claims that he knew Dr. Estrada as an accredited physician of CMC, though he discovered later that Dr. Estrada was not a salaried employee of the CMC. 35 Rogelio further claims that he was dealing with CMC, whose primary concern was the treatment and management of his wife's condition. Dr. Estrada just happened to be the specific person he talked to representing CMC.36 Moreover, the fact that CMC made Rogelio sign a Consent on Admission and Admission Agreement37 and a Consent to Operation printed on the letterhead of CMC indicates that CMC considered Dr. Estrada as a member of its medical staff.

On the other hand, CMC disclaims liability by asserting that Dr. Estrada was a mere visiting physician and that it admitted Corazon because her physical condition then was classified an emergency obstetrics case.38

CMC alleges that Dr. Estrada is an independent contractor "for whose actuations CMC would be a total stranger." CMC maintains that it had no control or supervision over Dr. Estrada in the exercise of his medical profession.

The Court had the occasion to determine the relationship between a hospital and a consultant or visiting physician and the liability of such hospital for that physician's negligence in Ramos v. Court of Appeals,39 to wit:

In the first place, hospitals exercise significant control in the hiring and firing of consultants and in the conduct of their work within the hospital premises. Doctors who apply for "consultant" slots, visiting or attending, are required to submit proof of completion of residency, their educational qualifications; generally, evidence of accreditation by the appropriate board (diplomate), evidence of fellowship in most cases, and references. These requirements are carefully scrutinized by members of the hospital administration or by a review committee set up by the hospital who either accept or reject the application. This is particularly true with respondent hospital.

After a physician is accepted, either as a visiting or attending consultant, he is normally required to attend clinico-pathological conferences, conduct bedside rounds for clerks, interns and residents, moderate

Page 20 of 35

grand rounds and patient audits and perform other tasks and responsibilities, for the privilege of being able to maintain a clinic in the hospital, and/or for the privilege of admitting patients into the hospital. In addition to these, the physician's performance as a specialist is generally evaluated by a peer review committee on the basis of mortality and morbidity statistics, and feedback from patients, nurses, interns and residents. A consultant remiss in his duties, or a consultant who regularly falls short of the minimum standards acceptable to the hospital or its peer review committee, is normally politely terminated.

In other words, private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control over their attending and visiting "consultant" staff. While "consultants" are not, technically employees, a point which respondent hospital asserts in denying all responsibility for the patient's condition, the control exercised, the hiring, and the right to terminate consultants all fulfill the important hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship, with the exception of the payment of wages. In assessing whether such a relationship in fact exists, the control test is determining. Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, we rule that for the purpose of allocating responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians. This being the case, the question now arises as to whether or not respondent hospital is solidarily liable with respondent doctors for petitioner's condition.

The basis for holding an employer solidarily responsible for the negligence of its employee is found in Article 2180 of the Civil Code which considers a person accountable not only for his own acts but also for those of others based on the former's responsibility under a relationship of patria potestas. x x x 40

(Emphasis supplied)

While the Court in Ramos did not expound on the control test, such test essentially determines whether an employment relationship exists between a physician and a hospital based on the exercise of control over the physician as to details. Specifically, the employer (or the hospital) must have the right to control both the means and the details of the process by which the employee (or the physician) is to accomplish his task. 41

After a thorough examination of the voluminous records of this case, the Court finds no single evidence pointing to CMC's exercise of control over Dr. Estrada's treatment and management of Corazon's condition. It is undisputed that throughout Corazon's pregnancy, she was under the exclusive prenatal care of Dr. Estrada. At the time of Corazon's admission at CMC and during her delivery, it was Dr. Estrada, assisted by Dr. Villaflor, who attended to Corazon. There was no showing that CMC had a part in diagnosing Corazon's condition. While Dr. Estrada enjoyed staff privileges at CMC, such fact alone did not make him an employee of CMC.42 CMC merely allowed Dr. Estrada to use its facilities43 when Corazon was about to give birth, which CMC considered an emergency. Considering these circumstances, Dr. Estrada is not an employee of CMC, but an independent contractor.

The question now is whether CMC is automatically exempt from liability considering that Dr. Estrada is an independent contractor-physician.

In general, a hospital is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor-physician. There is, however, an exception to this principle. The hospital may be liable if the physician is the "ostensible" agent of the hospital. 44

This exception is also known as the "doctrine of apparent authority." 45 In Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal Hospital,46

the Illinois Supreme Court explained the doctrine of apparent authority in this wise:

[U]nder the doctrine of apparent authority a hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligent acts of a physician providing care at the hospital, regardless of whether the physician is an independent contractor, unless the patient knows, or should have known, that the physician is an independent contractor. The elements of the action have been set out as follows:

Page 21 of 35

"For a hospital to be liable under the doctrine of apparent authority, a plaintiff must show that: (1) the hospital, or its agent, acted in a manner that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital; (2) where the acts of the agent create the appearance of authority, the plaintiff must also prove that the hospital had knowledge of and acquiesced in them; and (3) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and prudence."

The element of "holding out" on the part of the hospital does not require an express representation by the hospital that the person alleged to be negligent is an employee. Rather, the element is satisfied if the hospital holds itself out as a provider of emergency room care without informing the patient that the care is provided by independent contractors.

The element of justifiable reliance on the part of the plaintiff is satisfied if the plaintiff relies upon the hospital to provide complete emergency room care, rather than upon a specific physician.

The doctrine of apparent authority essentially involves two factors to determine the liability of an independent-contractor physician.

The first factor focuses on the hospital's manifestations and is sometimes described as an inquiry whether the hospital acted in a manner which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual who was alleged to be negligent was an employee or agent of the hospital.47 In this regard, the hospital need not make express representations to the patient that the treating physician is an employee of the hospital; rather a representation may be general and implied.48

The doctrine of apparent authority is a species of the doctrine of estoppel. Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides that "[t]hrough estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon." Estoppel rests on this rule: "Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it."49

In the instant case, CMC impliedly held out Dr. Estrada as a member of its medical staff. Through CMC's acts, CMC clothed Dr. Estrada with apparent authority thereby leading the Spouses Nogales to believe that Dr. Estrada was an employee or agent of CMC. CMC cannot now repudiate such authority.

The second factor focuses on the patient's reliance. It is sometimes characterized as an inquiry on whether the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary care and prudence.54

The records show that the Spouses Nogales relied upon a perceived employment relationship with CMC in accepting Dr. Estrada's services. Rogelio testified that he and his wife specifically chose Dr. Estrada to handle Corazon's delivery not only because of their friend's recommendation, but more importantly because of Dr. Estrada's "connection with a reputable hospital, the [CMC]."55 In other words, Dr. Estrada's relationship with CMC played a significant role in the Spouses Nogales' decision in accepting Dr. Estrada's services as the obstetrician-gynecologist for Corazon's delivery. Moreover, as earlier stated, there is no showing that before and during Corazon's confinement at CMC, the Spouses Nogales knew or should have known that Dr. Estrada was not an employee of CMC.

CMC's defense that all it did was "to extend to [Corazon] its facilities" is untenable. The Court cannot close its eyes to the reality that hospitals, such as CMC, are in the business of treatment. In this regard, the Court agrees with the observation made by the Court of Appeals of North Carolina in Diggs v. Novant Health, Inc.,57 to wit:

Page 22 of 35

"The conception that the hospital does not undertake to treat the patient, does not undertake to act through its doctors and nurses, but undertakes instead simply to procure them to act upon their own responsibility, no longer reflects the fact. Present day hospitals, as their manner of operation plainly demonstrates, do far more than furnish facilities for treatment. They regularly employ on a salary basis a large staff of physicians, nurses and internes [sic], as well as administrative and manual workers, and they charge patients for medical care and treatment, collecting for such services, if necessary, by legal action. Certainly, the person who avails himself of 'hospital facilities' expects that the hospital will attempt to cure him, not that its nurses or other employees will act on their own responsibility." x x x (Emphasis supplied)

Likewise unconvincing is CMC's argument that petitioners are estopped from claiming damages based on the Consent on Admission and Consent to Operation. Both release forms consist of two parts. The first part gave CMC permission to administer to Corazon any form of recognized medical treatment which the CMC medical staff deemed advisable. The second part of the documents, which may properly be described as the releasing part, releases CMC and its employees "from any and all claims" arising from or by reason of the treatment and operation.

The documents do not expressly release CMC from liability for injury to Corazon due to negligence during her treatment or operation. Neither do the consent forms expressly exempt CMC from liability for Corazon's death due to negligence during such treatment or operation. Such release forms, being in the nature of contracts of adhesion, are construed strictly against hospitals. Besides, a blanket release in favor of hospitals "from any and all claims," which includes claims due to bad faith or gross negligence, would be contrary to public policy and thus void.

Even simple negligence is not subject to blanket release in favor of establishments like hospitals but may only mitigate liability depending on the circumstances.58 When a person needing urgent medical attention rushes to a hospital, he cannot bargain on equal footing with the hospital on the terms of admission and operation. Such a person is literally at the mercy of the hospital. There can be no clearer example of a contract of adhesion than one arising from such a dire situation. Thus, the release forms of CMC cannot relieve CMC from liability for the negligent medical treatment of Corazon.

On the Liability of the Other Respondents

Despite this Court's pronouncement in its 9 September 200259 Resolution that the filing of petitioners' Manifestation confined petitioners' claim only against CMC, Dr. Espinola, Dr. Lacson, and Dr. Uy, who have filed their comments, the Court deems it proper to resolve the individual liability of the remaining respondents to put an end finally to this more than two-decade old controversy.

a) Dr. Ely Villaflor

Petitioners blame Dr. Ely Villaflor for failing to diagnose the cause of Corazon's bleeding and to suggest the correct remedy to Dr. Estrada.60 Petitioners assert that it was Dr. Villaflor's duty to correct the error of Nurse Dumlao in the administration of hemacel.

The Court is not persuaded. Dr. Villaflor admitted administering a lower dosage of magnesium sulfate. However, this was after informing Dr. Estrada that Corazon was no longer in convulsion and that her blood pressure went down to a dangerous level.61 At that moment, Dr. Estrada instructed Dr. Villaflor to reduce the dosage of magnesium sulfate from 10 to 2.5 grams. Since petitioners did not dispute Dr. Villaflor's allegation, Dr. Villaflor's defense remains uncontroverted. Dr. Villaflor's act of administering a lower dosage of magnesium sulfate was not out of her own volition or was in contravention of Dr. Estrada's order.

b) Dr. Rosa Uy

Page 23 of 35

The Court believes Dr. Uy's claim that as a second year resident physician then at CMC, she was merely authorized to take the clinical history and physical examination of Corazon.62 However, that routine internal examination did not ipso facto make Dr. Uy liable for the errors committed by Dr. Estrada. Further, petitioners' imputation of negligence rests on their baseless assumption that Dr. Uy was present at the delivery room. Nothing shows that Dr. Uy participated in delivering Corazon's baby. Further, it is unexpected from Dr. Uy, a mere resident physician at that time, to call the attention of a more experienced specialist, if ever she was present at the delivery room.

c) Dr. Joel Enriquez

The Court is not convinced. Dr. Enriquez is an anesthesiologist whose field of expertise is definitely not obstetrics and gynecology. As such, Dr. Enriquez was not expected to correct Dr. Estrada's errors. Besides, there was no evidence of Dr. Enriquez's knowledge of any error committed by Dr. Estrada and his failure to act upon such observation.

d) Dr. Perpetua Lacson

As found by the trial court, there was no unreasonable delay in the delivery of blood from the time of the request until the transfusion to Corazon. Dr. Lacson competently explained the procedure before blood could be given to the patient.65 Taking into account the bleeding time, clotting time and cross-matching, Dr. Lacson stated that it would take approximately 45-60 minutes before blood could be ready for transfusion.66 Further, no evidence exists that Dr. Lacson neglected her duties as head of the blood bank.

e) Dr. Noe Espinola

Dr. Espinola's order to do hysterectomy which was based on the information he received by phone is not negligence. The Court agrees with the trial court's observation that Dr. Espinola, upon hearing such information about Corazon's condition, believed in good faith that hysterectomy was the correct remedy. At any rate, the hysterectomy did not push through because upon Dr. Espinola's arrival, it was already too late. At the time, Corazon was practically dead.

f) Nurse J. Dumlao

In the present case, there is no evidence of Nurse Dumlao's alleged failure to follow Dr. Estrada's specific instructions. Even assuming Nurse Dumlao defied Dr. Estrada's order, there is no showing that side-drip administration of hemacel proximately caused Corazon's death. No evidence linking Corazon's death and the alleged wrongful hemacel administration was introduced. Therefore, there is no basis to hold Nurse Dumlao liable for negligence.

8. Cantre v. Sps. Go

FACTS:

Petitioner Dr. Milagros L. Cantre is a specialist in Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Dr. Jesus Delgado Memorial Hospital. She was the attending physician of respondent Nora S. Go, who was admitted at the said hospital on April 19, 1992.

At 1:30 a.m. of April 20, 1992, Nora gave birth to her fourth child, a baby boy. However, at around 3:30 a.m., Nora suffered profuse bleeding inside her womb due to some parts of the placenta which were not completely expelled from her womb after delivery. Consequently, Nora suffered hypovolemic shock, resulting in a drop in her blood pressure to "40" over "0." Petitioner and the assisting resident physician performed various medical procedures to stop the bleeding and to restore Nora’s blood pressure. Her blood pressure was frequently monitored with the use

Page 24 of 35

of a sphygmomanometer. While petitioner was massaging Nora’s uterus for it to contract and stop bleeding, she ordered a droplight to warm Nora and her baby.4 Nora remained unconscious until she recovered.

While in the recovery room, her husband, respondent John David Z. Go noticed a fresh gaping wound two and a half (2 ½) by three and a half (3 ½) inches in the inner portion of her left arm, close to the armpit. 5 He asked the nurses what caused the injury. He was informed it was a burn. Forthwith, on April 22, 1992, John David filed a request for investigation.6 In response, Dr. Rainerio S. Abad, the medical director of the hospital, called petitioner and the assisting resident physician to explain what happened. Petitioner said the blood pressure cuff caused the injury.

On May 7, 1992, John David brought Nora to the National Bureau of Investigation for a physical examination, which was conducted by medico-legal officer Dr. Floresto Arizala, Jr.7 The medico-legal officer later testified that Nora’s injury appeared to be a burn and that a droplight when placed near the skin for about 10 minutes could cause such burn.8 He dismissed the likelihood that the wound was caused by a blood pressure cuff as the scar was not around the arm, but just on one side of the arm.9

On May 22, 1992, Nora’s injury was referred to a plastic surgeon at the Dr. Jesus Delgado Memorial Hospital for skin grafting.10 Her wound was covered with skin sourced from her abdomen, which consequently bore a scar as well. About a year after, on April 30, 1993, scar revision had to be performed at the same hospital. 11 The surgical operation left a healed linear scar in Nora’s left arm about three inches in length, the thickest portion rising about one-fourth (1/4) of an inch from the surface of the skin. The costs of the skin grafting and the scar revision were shouldered by the hospital.12

Unfortunately, Nora’s arm would never be the same.1a\^/phi1.net Aside from the unsightly mark, the pain in her left arm remains. When sleeping, she has to cradle her wounded arm. Her movements now are also restricted. Her children cannot play with the left side of her body as they might accidentally bump the injured arm, which aches at the slightest touch.

Thus, on June 21, 1993, respondent spouses filed a complaint13 for damages against petitioner, Dr. Abad, and the hospital. Finding in favor of respondent spouses.

Petitioner, Dr. Abad, and the hospital all appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification the trial court decision.

ISSUE:

Is petitioner liable for the injury suffered by respondent Nora Go?

HELD:

In cases involving medical negligence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur allows the mere existence of an injury to justify a presumption of negligence on the part of the person who controls the instrument causing the injury, provided that the following requisites concur:

1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence;

2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; and

3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated.18

Page 25 of 35

As to the first requirement, the gaping wound on Nora’s arm is certainly not an ordinary occurrence in the act of delivering a baby, far removed as the arm is from the organs involved in the process of giving birth. Such injury could not have happened unless negligence had set in somewhere.

Second, whether the injury was caused by the droplight or by the blood pressure cuff is of no moment. Both instruments are deemed within the exclusive control of the physician in charge under the "captain of the ship" doctrine. This doctrine holds the surgeon in charge of an operation liable for the negligence of his assistants during the time when those assistants are under the surgeon’s control.19 In this particular case, it can be logically inferred that petitioner, the senior consultant in charge during the delivery of Nora’s baby, exercised control over the assistants assigned to both the use of the droplight and the taking of Nora’s blood pressure. Hence, the use of the droplight and the blood pressure cuff is also within petitioner’s exclusive control.

Third, the gaping wound on Nora’s left arm, by its very nature and considering her condition, could only be caused by something external to her and outside her control as she was unconscious while in hypovolemic shock. Hence, Nora could not, by any stretch of the imagination, have contributed to her own injury.

Petitioner’s defense that Nora’s wound was caused not by the droplight but by the constant taking of her blood pressure, even if the latter was necessary given her condition, does not absolve her from liability. As testified to by the medico-legal officer, Dr. Arizala, Jr., the medical practice is to deflate the blood pressure cuff immediately after each use. Otherwise, the inflated band can cause injury to the patient similar to what could have happened in this case. Thus, if Nora’s wound was caused by the blood pressure cuff, then the taking of Nora’s blood pressure must have been done so negligently as to have inflicted a gaping wound on her arm,20 for which petitioner cannot escape liability under the "captain of the ship" doctrine.

Further, petitioner’s argument that the failed plastic surgery was not intended as a cosmetic procedure, but rather as a measure to prevent complication does not help her case. It does not negate negligence on her part.

Based on the foregoing, the presumption that petitioner was negligent in the exercise of her profession stands unrebutted. In this connection, the Civil Code provides:

ART. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.…

ART. 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission.

Clearly, under the law, petitioner is obliged to pay Nora for moral damages suffered by the latter as a proximate result of petitioner’s negligence.

9. Ramos v. CA

FACTS:

Due to gall stones, Erlinda Ramos went to Dr. Hosaka to undergo a "cholecystectomy" operation. During the consultation, Rogeliio, the husband, asked Dr. Hosaka to look for a good anaesthesiologist for his wife for the operation. Dr. Hosaka scheduled the operation at DLMSC on June 17, 1985.

The plaintiffs waited for Dr. Hosaka for three hours before he arrived at the hospital for the operation apparently because he has a scheduled operation in another hospital as well.

Page 26 of 35

Erlinda was accompanied by her sister-in-law, Herminda Cruz, who was the Dean of the College of Nursing at the Capitol Medical Center, during the operation to give her moral support.

Suddenly, Cruz heard Dr. Cruz, the anaesthesiologist saying "ang hirap ma-intubate nito, mali yata ang pagkakapasok. O lumalaki ang tiyan." Thereafter, Cruz noticed that the nailbeds of Erlinda turned bluish. Alarmed by this, Cruz went to Rogelio and informed him that something is wrong with the operation. Later on, Erlinda became comatose.

The plaintiffs then filed a case against the doctors who operated on Erlinda as well as to the hospital with the RTC, which ruled in their favour.

On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUES:

1. Is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable in this case?2. Are Dr. Guittierrez, Dr. Hosaka and the hospital liable to Ramos?

HELD:

On the 1st Issue:

Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase which literally means "the thing or the transaction speaks for itself." The phrase "res ipsa loquitur'' is a maxim for the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff's prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation. 13 Where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have its management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from or was caused by the defendant's want of care. 14

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is simply a recognition of the postulate that, as a matter of common knowledge and experience, the very nature of certain types of occurrences may justify an inference of negligence on the part of the person who controls the instrumentality causing the injury in the absence of some explanation by the defendant who is charged with negligence. 15 It is grounded in the superior logic of ordinary human experience and on the basis of such experience or common knowledge, negligence may be deduced from the mere occurrence of the accident itself. 16 Hence, res ipsa loquitur is applied in conjunction with the doctrine of common knowledge.

However, much has been said that res ipsa loquitur is not a rule of substantive law and, as such, does not create or constitute an independent or separate ground of liability. 17 Instead, it is considered as merely evidentiary or in the nature of a procedural rule. 18 It is regarded as a mode of proof, or a mere procedural of convenience since it furnishes a substitute for, and relieves a plaintiff of, the burden of producing specific proof of negligence. 19 In other words, mere invocation and application of the doctrine does not dispense with the requirement of proof of negligence. It is simply a step in the process of such proof, permitting the plaintiff to present along with the proof of the accident, enough of the attending circumstances to invoke the doctrine, creating an inference or presumption of negligence, and to thereby place on the defendant the burden of going forward with the proof. 20

Still, before resort to the doctrine may be allowed, the following requisites must be satisfactorily shown:

1. The accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence;

Page 27 of 35

2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant or defendants; and

3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated. 21

Although generally, expert medical testimony is relied upon in malpractice suits to prove that a physician has done a negligent act or that he has deviated from the standard medical procedure, when the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence. 27 The reason is that the general rule on the necessity of expert testimony applies only to such matters clearly within the domain of medical science, and not to matters that are within the common knowledge of mankind which may be testified to by anyone familiar with the facts. 28 Ordinarily, only physicians and surgeons of skill and experience are competent to testify as to whether a patient has been treated or operated upon with a reasonable degree of skill and care. However, testimony as to the statements and acts of physicians and surgeons, external appearances, and manifest conditions which are observable by any one may be given by non-expert witnesses. 29 Hence, in cases where the res ipsa loquitur is applicable, the court is permitted to find a physician negligent upon proper proof of injury to the patient, without the aid of expert testimony, where the court from its fund of common knowledge can determine the proper standard of care. 30 Where common knowledge and experience teach that a resulting injury would not have occurred to the patient if due care had been exercised, an inference of negligence may be drawn giving rise to an application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur without medical evidence, which is ordinarily required to show not only what occurred but how and why it occurred. 31 When the doctrine is appropriate, all that the patient must do is prove a nexus between the particular act or omission complained of and the injury sustained while under the custody and management of the defendant without need to produce expert medical testimony to establish the standard of care. Resort to res ipsa loquitur is allowed because there is no other way, under usual and ordinary conditions, by which the patient can obtain redress for injury suffered by him.

Thus, courts of other jurisdictions have applied the doctrine in the following situations: leaving of a foreign object in the body of the patient after an operation, 32 injuries sustained on a healthy part of the body which was not under, or in the area, of treatment, 33 removal of the wrong part of the body when another part was intended, 34

knocking out a tooth while a patient's jaw was under anesthetic for the removal of his tonsils, 35 and loss of an eye while the patient plaintiff was under the influence of anesthetic, during or following an operation for appendicitis, 36 among others.

A distinction must be made between the failure to secure results, and the occurrence of something more unusual and not ordinarily found if the service or treatment rendered followed the usual procedure of those skilled in that particular practice. It must be conceded that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can have no application in a suit against a physician or surgeon which involves the merits of a diagnosis or of a scientific treatment. 38 The physician or surgeon is not required at his peril to explain why any particular diagnosis was not correct, or why any particular scientific treatment did not produce the desired result. 39 Thus, res ipsa loquitur is not available in a malpractice suit if the only showing is that the desired result of an operation or treatment was not accomplished. 40 The real question, therefore, is whether or not in the process of the operation any extraordinary incident or unusual event outside of the routine performance occurred which is beyond the regular scope of customary professional activity in such operations, which, if unexplained would themselves reasonably speak to the average man as the negligent cause or causes of the untoward consequence. 41 If there was such extraneous interventions, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be utilized and the defendant is called upon to explain the matter, by evidence of exculpation, if he could. 42

We find the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur appropriate in the case at bar.

x x x

Page 28 of 35

Indeed, the principles enunciated in the aforequoted case apply with equal force here. In the present case, Erlinda submitted herself for cholecystectomy and expected a routine general surgery to be performed on her gall bladder. On that fateful day she delivered her person over to the care, custody and control of private respondents who exercised complete and exclusive control over her. At the time of submission, Erlinda was neurologically sound and, except for a few minor discomforts, was likewise physically fit in mind and body. However, during the administration of anesthesia and prior to the performance of cholecystectomy she suffered irreparable damage to her brain. Thus, without undergoing surgery, she went out of the operating room already decerebrate and totally incapacitated. Obviously, brain damage, which Erlinda sustained, is an injury which does not normally occur in the process of a gall bladder operation. In fact, this kind of situation does not in the absence of negligence of someone in the administration of anesthesia and in the use of endotracheal tube. Normally, a person being put under anesthesia is not rendered decerebrate as a consequence of administering such anesthesia if the proper procedure was followed. Furthermore, the instruments used in the administration of anesthesia, including the endotracheal tube, were all under the exclusive control of private respondents, who are the physicians-in-charge. Likewise, petitioner Erlinda could not have been guilty of contributory negligence because she was under the influence of anesthetics which rendered her unconscious.

Nonetheless, in holding that res ipsa loquitur is available to the present case we are not saying that the doctrine is applicable in any and all cases where injury occurs to a patient while under anesthesia, or to any and all anesthesia cases. Each case must be viewed in its own light and scrutinized in order to be within the res ipsa loquitur coverage.

On the 2nd Issue:

We disagree with the findings of the Court of Appeals. We hold that private respondents were unable to disprove the presumption of negligence on their part in the care of Erlinda and their negligence was the proximate cause of her piteous condition.

In other words, what the Court of Appeals is trying to impress is that being a nurse, and considered a layman in the process of intubation, witness Cruz is not competent to testify on whether or not the intubation was a success.

We do not agree with the above reasoning of the appellate court. Although witness Cruz is not an anesthesiologist, she can very well testify upon matters on which she is capable of observing such as, the statements and acts of the physician and surgeon, external appearances, and manifest conditions which are observable by any one. 48 This is precisely allowed under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur where the testimony of expert witnesses is not required. It is the accepted rule that expert testimony is not necessary for the proof of negligence in non-technical matters or those of which an ordinary person may be expected to have knowledge, or where the lack of skill or want of care is so obvious as to render expert testimony unnecessary. 49 We take judicial notice of the fact that anesthesia procedures have become so common, that even an ordinary person can tell if it was administered properly. As such, it would not be too difficult to tell if the tube was properly inserted. This kind of observation, we believe, does not require a medical degree to be acceptable.

At any rate, without doubt, petitioner's witness, an experienced clinical nurse whose long experience and scholarship led to her appointment as Dean of the Capitol Medical Center School at Nursing, was fully capable of determining whether or not the intubation was a success. She had extensive clinical experience starting as a staff nurse in Chicago, Illinois; staff nurse and clinical instructor in a teaching hospital, the FEU-NRMF; Dean of the Laguna College of Nursing in San Pablo City; and then Dean of the Capitol Medical Center School of Nursing. 50

Reviewing witness Cruz' statements, we find that the same were delivered in a straightforward manner, with the kind of detail, clarity, consistency and spontaneity which would have been difficult to fabricate. With her clinical background as a nurse, the Court is satisfied that she was able to demonstrate through her testimony what truly transpired on that fateful day.

Page 29 of 35

Most of all, her testimony was affirmed by no less than respondent Dra. Gutierrez who admitted that she experienced difficulty in inserting the tube into Erlinda's trachea.

Curiously in the case at bar, respondent Dra. Gutierrez made the haphazard defense that she encountered hardship in the insertion of the tube in the trachea of Erlinda because it was positioned more anteriorly (slightly deviated from the normal anatomy of a person) 52 making it harder to locate and, since Erlinda is obese and has a short neck and protruding teeth, it made intubation even more difficult.

The argument does not convince us. If this was indeed observed, private respondents adduced no evidence demonstrating that they proceeded to make a thorough assessment of Erlinda's airway, prior to the induction of anesthesia, even if this would mean postponing the procedure. From their testimonies, it appears that the observation was made only as an afterthought, as a means of defense.

The pre-operative evaluation of a patient prior to the administration of anesthesia is universally observed to lessen the possibility of anesthetic accidents. Pre-operative evaluation and preparation for anesthesia begins when the anesthesiologist reviews the patient's medical records and visits with the patient, traditionally, the day before elective surgery.

In the case at bar, respondent Dra. Gutierrez admitted that she saw Erlinda for the first time on the day of the operation itself, on 17 June 1985. Before this date, no prior consultations with, or pre-operative evaluation of Erlinda was done by her. Until the day of the operation, respondent Dra. Gutierrez was unaware of the physiological make-up and needs of Erlinda. She was likewise not properly informed of the possible difficulties she would face during the administration of anesthesia to Erlinda. Respondent Dra. Gutierrez' act of seeing her patient for the first time only an hour before the scheduled operative procedure was, therefore, an act of exceptional negligence and professional irresponsibility. The measures cautioning prudence and vigilance in dealing with human lives lie at the core of the physician's centuries-old Hippocratic Oath. Her failure to follow this medical procedure is, therefore, a clear indicia of her negligence.

Private respondents repeatedly hammered the view that the cerebral anoxia which led to Erlinda's coma was due to bronchospasm 59 mediated by her allergic response to the drug, Thiopental Sodium, introduced into her system. Towards this end, they presented Dr. Jamora, a Fellow of the Philippine College of Physicians and Diplomate of the Philippine Specialty Board of Internal Medicine, who advanced private respondents' theory that the oxygen deprivation which led to anoxic encephalopathy, 60 was due to an unpredictable drug reaction to the short-acting barbiturate. We find the theory of private respondents unacceptable.

First of all, Dr. Jamora cannot be considered an authority in the field of anesthesiology simply because he is not an anesthesiologist. Since Dr. Jamora is a pulmonologist, he could not have been capable of properly enlightening the court about anesthesia practice and procedure and their complications. Dr. Jamora is likewise not an allergologist and could not therefore properly advance expert opinion on allergic-mediated processes. Moreover, he is not a pharmacologist and, as such, could not have been capable, as an expert would, of explaining to the court the pharmacologic and toxic effects of the supposed culprit, Thiopental Sodium (Pentothal).

Generally, to qualify as an expert witness, one must have acquired special knowledge of the subject matter about which he or she is to testify, either by the study of recognized authorities on the subject or by practical experience. 63 Clearly, Dr. Jamora does not qualify as an expert witness based on the above standard since he lacks the necessary knowledge, skill, and training in the field of anesthesiology. Oddly, apart from submitting testimony from a specialist in the wrong field, private respondents' intentionally avoided providing testimony by competent and independent experts in the proper areas.

Moreover, private respondents' theory, that Thiopental Sodium may have produced Erlinda's coma by triggering an allergic mediated response, has no support in evidence. No evidence of stridor, skin reactions, or wheezing —

Page 30 of 35

some of the more common accompanying signs of an allergic reaction — appears on record. No laboratory data were ever presented to the court.

In view of the evidence at hand, we are inclined to believe petitioners' stand that it was the faulty intubation which was the proximate cause of Erlinda's comatose condition.

Proximate cause has been defined as that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. 64 An injury or damage is proximately caused by an act or a failure to act, whenever it appears from the evidence in the case, that the act or omission played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damage; and that the injury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the act or omission. 65 It is the dominant, moving or producing cause.

We now determine the responsibility of respondent Dr. Orlino Hosaka as the head of the surgical team. As the so-called "captain of the ship," 73 it is the surgeon's responsibility to see to it that those under him perform their task in the proper manner. Respondent Dr. Hosaka's negligence can be found in his failure to exercise the proper authority (as the "captain" of the operative team) in not determining if his anesthesiologist observed proper anesthesia protocols. In fact, no evidence on record exists to show that respondent Dr. Hosaka verified if respondent Dra. Gutierrez properly intubated the patient. Furthermore, it does not escape us that respondent Dr. Hosaka had scheduled another procedure in a different hospital at the same time as Erlinda's cholecystectomy, and was in fact over three hours late for the latter's operation. Because of this, he had little or no time to confer with his anesthesiologist regarding the anesthesia delivery. This indicates that he was remiss in his professional duties towards his patient. Thus, he shares equal responsibility for the events which resulted in Erlinda's condition.

We now discuss the responsibility of the hospital in this particular incident. The unique practice (among private hospitals) of filling up specialist staff with attending and visiting "consultants," 74 who are allegedly not hospital employees, presents problems in apportioning responsibility for negligence in medical malpractice cases. However, the difficulty is only more apparent than real.

In the first place, hospitals exercise significant control in the hiring and firing of consultants and in the conduct of their work within the hospital premises. Doctors who apply for "consultant" slots, visiting or attending, are required to submit proof of completion of residency, their educational qualifications; generally, evidence of accreditation by the appropriate board (diplomate), evidence of fellowship in most cases, and references. These requirements are carefully scrutinized by members of the hospital administration or by a review committee set up by the hospital who either accept or reject the application. 75 This is particularly true with respondent hospital.

After a physician is accepted, either as a visiting or attending consultant, he is normally required to attend clinico-pathological conferences, conduct bedside rounds for clerks, interns and residents, moderate grand rounds and patient audits and perform other tasks and responsibilities, for the privilege of being able to maintain a clinic in the hospital, and/or for the privilege of admitting patients into the hospital. In addition to these, the physician's performance as a specialist is generally evaluated by a peer review committee on the basis of mortality and morbidity statistics, and feedback from patients, nurses, interns and residents. A consultant remiss in his duties, or a consultant who regularly falls short of the minimum standards acceptable to the hospital or its peer review committee, is normally politely terminated.

In other words, private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control over their attending and visiting "consultant" staff. While "consultants" are not, technically employees, a point which respondent hospital asserts in denying all responsibility for the patient's condition, the control exercised, the hiring, and the right to terminate consultants all fulfill the important hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship, with the exception of the payment of wages. In assessing whether such a relationship in fact exists, the control test is determining. Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, we rule that for the purpose of allocating responsibility in medical negligence cases, an employer-employee relationship in effect exists between hospitals and their attending and visiting physicians.

Page 31 of 35

The basis for holding an employer solidarily responsible for the negligence of its employee is found in Article 2180 of the Civil Code which considers a person accountable not only for his own acts but also for those of others based on the former's responsibility under a relationship of patria potestas. 77 Such responsibility ceases when the persons or entity concerned prove that they have observed the diligence of a good father of the family to prevent damage. 78 In other words, while the burden of proving negligence rests on the plaintiffs, once negligence is shown, the burden shifts to the respondents (parent, guardian, teacher or employer) who should prove that they observed the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

In the instant case, respondent hospital, apart from a general denial of its responsibility over respondent physicians, failed to adduce evidence showing that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the hiring and supervision of the latter. It failed to adduce evidence with regard to the degree of supervision which it exercised over its physicians. In neglecting to offer such proof, or proof of a similar nature, respondent hospital thereby failed to discharge its burden under the last paragraph of Article 2180. Having failed to do this, respondent hospital is consequently solidarily responsible with its physicians for Erlinda's condition.

10. Jarcia v. People

Belinda Santiago (Mrs. Santiago) lodged a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) against the petitioners, Dr. Emmanuel Jarcia, Jr. (Dr. Jarcia) and Dr. Marilou Bastan (Dr. Bastan), for their alleged neglect of professional duty which caused her son, Roy Alfonso Santiago (Roy Jr.), to suffer serious physical injuries. Upon investigation, the NBI found that Roy Jr. was hit by a taxicab; that he was rushed to the Manila Doctors Hospital for an emergency medical treatment; that an X-ray of the victim’s ankle was ordered; that the X-ray result showed no fracture as read by Dr. Jarcia; that Dr. Bastan entered the emergency room (ER) and, after conducting her own examination of the victim, informed Mrs. Santiago that since it was only the ankle that was hit, there was no need to examine the upper leg; that eleven (11) days later, Roy Jr. developed fever, swelling of the right leg and misalignment of the right foot; that Mrs. Santiago brought him back to the hospital; and that the X-ray revealed a right mid-tibial fracture and a linear hairline fracture in the shaft of the bone.

The NBI indorsed the matter to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila for preliminary investigation. Probable cause was found and a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries, was filed against Dr. Jarcia, Dr. Bastan and Dr. Pamittan,5 before the RTC, docketed as Criminal Case No. 01-196646.

On June 14, 2005, the RTC found the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical Injuries.

Dissatisfied, the petitioners appealed to the CA.

As earlier stated, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

ISSUES:

1. WON the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in this case; and2. WON the petitioners are liable for criminal negligence.

HELD:

On the 1st Issue:

As to the Application of The Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

Page 32 of 35

This doctrine of res ipsa loquitur means "Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care." The Black's Law Dictionary defines the said doctrine. Thus:

The thing speaks for itself. Rebuttable presumption or inference that defendant was negligent, which arises upon proof that the instrumentality causing injury was in defendant's exclusive control, and that the accident was one which ordinarily does not happen in absence of negligence. Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence whereby negligence of the alleged wrongdoer may be inferred from the mere fact that the accident happened provided the character of the accident and circumstances attending it lead reasonably to belief that in the absence of negligence it would not have occurred and that thing which caused injury is shown to have been under the management and control of the alleged wrongdoer. Under this doctrine, the happening of an injury permits an inference of negligence where plaintiff produces substantial evidence that the injury was caused by an agency or instrumentality under the exclusive control and management of defendant, and that the occurrence was such that in the ordinary course of things would not happen if reasonable care had been used.10

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as a rule of evidence is unusual to the law of negligence which recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and furnishes a substitute for specific proof of negligence. The doctrine, however, is not a rule of substantive law, but merely a mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience. The rule, when applicable to the facts and circumstances of a given case, is not meant to and does not dispense with the requirement of proof of culpable negligence on the party charged. It merely determines and regulates what shall be prima facie evidence thereof and helps the plaintiff in proving a breach of the duty. The doctrine can be invoked when and only when, under the circumstances involved, direct evidence is absent and not readily available.11

The requisites for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are: (1) the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person in charge; and (3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution of the person injured.12

In this case, the circumstances that caused patient Roy Jr.’s injury and the series of tests that were supposed to be undergone by him to determine the extent of the injury suffered were not under the exclusive control of Drs. Jarcia and Bastan. It was established that they are mere residents of the Manila Doctors Hospital at that time who attended to the victim at the emergency room.13 While it may be true that the circumstances pointed out by the courts below seem doubtless to constitute reckless imprudence on the part of the petitioners, this conclusion is still best achieved, not through the scholarly assumptions of a layman like the patient’s mother, but by the unquestionable knowledge of expert witness/es. As to whether the petitioners have exercised the requisite degree of skill and care in treating patient Roy, Jr. is generally a matter of expert opinion.

On the 2nd Issue:

As to Dr. Jarcia and Dr. Bastan’s negligence

The totality of the evidence on record clearly points to the negligence of the petitioners. At the risk of being repetitious, the Court, however, is not satisfied that Dr. Jarcia and Dr. Bastan are criminally negligent in this case.

Negligence is defined as the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.14

Page 33 of 35

Reckless imprudence consists of voluntarily doing or failing to do, without malice, an act from which material damage results by reason of an inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act.15

The elements of simple negligence are: (1) that there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender, and (2) that the damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest.16

In this case, the Court is not convinced with moral certainty that the petitioners are guilty of reckless imprudence or simple negligence. The elements thereof were not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

The testimony of Dr. Cirilo R. Tacata (Dr. Tacata), a specialist in pediatric orthopedic, although pointing to some medical procedures that could have been done by Dr. Jarcia and Dr. Bastan, as physicians on duty, was not clear as to whether the injuries suffered by patient Roy Jr. were indeed aggravated by the petitioners’ judgment call and their diagnosis or appreciation of the condition of the victim at the time they assessed him.

It can be gleaned from the testimony of Dr. Tacata that a thorough examination was not performed on Roy Jr. As residents on duty at the emergency room, Dr. Jarcia and Dr. Bastan were expected to know the medical protocol in treating leg fractures and in attending to victims of car accidents. There was, however, no precise evidence and scientific explanation pointing to the fact that the delay in the application of the cast to the patient’s fractured leg because of failure to immediately diagnose the specific injury of the patient, prolonged the pain of the child or aggravated his condition or even caused further complications. Any person may opine that had patient Roy Jr. been treated properly and given the extensive X-ray examination, the extent and severity of the injury, spiral fracture of the mid-tibial part or the bigger bone of the leg, could have been detected early on and the prolonged pain and suffering of Roy Jr. could have been prevented. But still, that opinion, even how logical it may seem would not, and could not, be enough basis to hold one criminally liable; thus, a reasonable doubt as to the petitioners’ guilt.

The Court, nevertheless, finds the petitioners civilly liable for their failure to sufficiently attend to Roy Jr.’s medical needs when the latter was rushed to the ER, for while a criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, only a preponderance of evidence is required to establish civil liability. Taken into account also was the fact that there was no bad faith on their part.

Dr. Jarcia and Dr. Bastan cannot pass on the liability to the taxi driver who hit the victim. It may be true that the actual, direct, immediate, and proximate cause of the injury (fracture of the leg bone or tibia) of Roy Jr. was the vehicular accident when he was hit by a taxi. The petitioners, however, cannot simply invoke such fact alone to excuse themselves from any liability. If this would be so, doctors would have a ready defense should they fail to do their job in attending to victims of hit-and-run, maltreatment, and other crimes of violence in which the actual, direct, immediate, and proximate cause of the injury is indubitably the act of the perpetrator/s.

In failing to perform an extensive medical examination to determine the extent of Roy Jr.’s injuries, Dr. Jarcia and Dr. Bastan were remiss of their duties as members of the medical profession. Assuming for the sake of argument that they did not have the capacity to make such thorough evaluation at that stage, they should have referred the patient to another doctor with sufficient training and experience instead of assuring him and his mother that everything was all right.

Indubitably, a physician-patient relationship exists between the petitioners and patient Roy Jr. Notably, the latter and his mother went to the ER for an immediate medical attention. The petitioners allegedly passed by and were requested to attend to the victim (contrary to the testimony of Dr. Tacata that they were, at that time, residents on duty at the ER).21 They obliged and examined the victim, and later assured the mother that everything was fine and that they could go home. Clearly, a physician-patient relationship was established between the petitioners and the patient Roy Jr.

Page 34 of 35

To repeat for clarity and emphasis, if these doctors knew from the start that they were not in the position to attend to Roy Jr., a vehicular accident victim, with the degree of diligence and commitment expected of every doctor in a case like this, they should have not made a baseless assurance that everything was all right. By doing so, they deprived Roy Jr. of adequate medical attention that placed him in a more dangerous situation than he was already in. What petitioners should have done, and could have done, was to refer Roy Jr. to another doctor who could competently and thoroughly examine his injuries.

All told, the petitioners were, indeed, negligent but only civilly, and not criminally, liable as the facts show.

Page 35 of 35