Borromeo v. Family Care Hospital, G.R. No. 191018, January 25, 2016
Borromeo v. Family Care Hospital, G.R. No. 191018, January 25, 2016
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
52
52
Remedial Law; Evidence; Res Ipsa Loquitur; Words and Phrases; Res
ipsa loquitur, literally, “the thing speaks for itself”; is a rule of evidence
that presumes negligence from the very nature of the accident itself using
common human knowledge or experience. The pe i ione canno in oke
he doc ine of res ipsa loquitur o hif he b den of e idence on o he
e ponden . Res ipsa loquitur, li e all , he hing peak fo i elf ; i a le
of e idence ha p e me negligence f om he e na e of he acciden
i elf ing common human knowledge o e pe ience. The applica ion of
hi le eq i e : (1) ha he acciden a of a kind hich doe no
o dina il occ nle omeone i negligen ; (2) ha he in men ali o
agenc hich ca ed he inj a nde he e cl i e con ol of he
pe on cha ged i h negligence; and (3) ha he inj ffe ed m no
ha e been d e o an ol n a ac ion o con ib ion f om he inj ed
pe on. The conc ence of he e elemen c ea e a p e mp ion of
negligence ha , if n eb ed, o e come he plain iff b den of p oof.
Thi doc ine i ed in conj nc ion i h he doctrine of common
knowledge. We ha e applied hi doc ine in he follo ing ca e in ol ing
medical p ac i ione : a. Whe e a pa ien ho a ched led fo a
cholec ec om ( emo al of gall one ) b a o he i e heal h ffe ed
i epa able b ain damage af e being admini e ed ane he ia p io o he
ope a ion; b. Whe e af e gi ing bi h, a oman oke p i h a gaping b n
o nd clo e o he lef a mpi ; c. The emo al of he ong bod pa
d ing he ope a ion; and d. Whe e an ope a ing geon lef a fo eign
objec (i.e., bbe glo e ) in ide he bod of he pa ien .
BRION, J.:
530
A ecede
The pe i ione , Ca lo Bo omeo, a he h band of he la e
Lilian V. Bo omeo (Lilian). Lilian a a pa ien of he e ponden
Famil Ca e Ho pi al, Inc. (Family Care) nde he ca e of
e ponden D . Ramon In o (Dr. Inso).
On J l 13, 1999, he pe i ione b o gh hi ife o he Famil
Ca e Ho pi al beca e he had been complaining of ac e pain a he
lo e omach a ea and fe e fo o da . She a admi ed a he
ho pi al and placed nde he ca e of D . In o.
D . In o pec ed ha Lilian migh be ffe ing f om ac e
appendici i . Ho e e , he e a in f cien da a o le o o he
po ible ca e and o p oceed i h an appendec om . Th , he
o de ed Lilian con nemen fo e ing and e al a ion.
O e he ne 48 ho , Lilian nde en m l iple e ch a
comple e blood co n , inal i , ool e am, pel ic
_______________
531
532
533
_______________
534
535
denting
Borromeo vs. Family Care Hospital, Inc.
are
Uni e i , and he Pe pe al Help Medical Cen e . He i a
Fello of he Philippine College of S geon , a Diploma e of he
Philippine Boa d of S ge , and a Fello of he Philippine Socie
of Gene al S geon .
D . Ramo di c edi ed D . Re e heo ha he 0.5 0.5 cm
opening a he epai i e ca ed Lilian in e nal bleeding.
Acco ding o D . Ramo , appendical e el mea e onl 0.1 o
0.15 cm, a claim ha a no ef ed b he pe i ione . If he 0.5
0.5 cm opening had ca ed Lilian hemo hage, he o ld no ha e
i ed fo o e 16 ho ; he o ld ha e died immedia el , i hin
20 o 30 min e , af e ge .
D . Ramo bmi ed ha he ca e of Lilian dea h a
hemo hage d e o DIC, a blood di o de ha lead o he fail e of
he blood o coag la e. D . Ramo con ide ed he ab ndan pe echial
hemo hage in he m oca dic ec ion and he hemo hagic igh
l ng; he m l iple bleeding poin indica e ha Lilian a af ic ed
i h DIC.
Mean hile, D . He nande i a gene al geon and a ho pi al
admini a o ho had been p ac icing ge fo en ea a of
he da e of hi e imon .
D . He nande e i ed ha Lilian dea h co ld no be a ib ed
o he alleged ong ing. He bmi ed ha he p e ence of
blood in he l ng , in he omach, and in he en i e leng h of he
bo el canno be econciled i h D . Re e heo ha he
hemo hage e l ed f om a ingle- ed appendi .
D . He nande e i ed ha Lilian had ncon ollable bleeding in
he mic oci c la ion a a e l of DIC. In DIC, blood oo e f om
e mall blood e el beca e of a p oblem in he clo ing fac o
of he blood e el . The mic oci c la ion i oo mall o be een b
he naked e e; he ed cell i e en malle han he ip of a needle.
The efo e, he alleged ong ing co ld no ha e ca ed he
amo n of hemo haging ha ca ed Lilian dea h.
536
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Borromeo vs. Family Care Hospital, Inc.
D . He nande f he e i ed ha he p oced e ha D . In o
pe fo med a con i en i h he al gical p oced e and he
o ld no ha e done an hing diffe en l .4
The pe i ione p e en ed D . R d a d A ila III (Dr. Avila) a a
eb al i ne . D . A ila, al o a la e , a p e en ed a an e pe
in medical j i p dence. D . A ila e i ed ha be een D . Re e
ho a op ied he pa ien and D . Ramo ho e nding e e ba ed
on medical eco d , g ea e eigh ho ld be gi en o D . Re e
e imon .
On Ap il 10, 2007, he RTC ende ed i deci ion a a ding he
pe i ione P88,077.50 a compen a o damage ; P50,000.00 a
dea h indemni ; P3,607,910.30 a lo of ea ning ; P50,000.00 a
mo al damage ; P30,000.00 a e empla damage ; P50,000.00 a
a o ne fee , and he co of he i .
The RTC elied on D . A ila opinion and ga e mo e eigh o
D . Re e nding ega ding he ca e of Lilian dea h. I held ha
D . In o a negligen in ing a ingle e on he epai i e
ca ing Lilian dea h b in e nal hemo hage. I applied he
doc ine of res ipsa loquitur, holding ha a pa ien dea h doe no
o dina il occ d ing an appendec om .
The e ponden ele a ed he ca e o he CA and he appeal a
docke ed a C.A.-G.R. C N . 89096.
On Jan a 22, 2010, he CA e e ed he RTC deci ion and
di mi ed he complain . The CA ga e g ea e eigh o he
e imonie of D . He nande and D . Ramo o e he nding of D .
Re e beca e he la e a no an e pe in pa holog ,
appendec om , no in ge . I di ega ded D . A ila opinion
beca e he ba ic p emi e of hi e imon a ha he doc o ho
cond c ed he a op i a pa hologi of eq al o of g ea e
e pe i e han D . Ramo o D . He nande .
_______________
537
The Pe i i
53
O R i g
The e i i i e
fac a e i .
_______________
5 New City Builders, Inc. v. NLRC, 499 Phil. 207, 212-213; 460 SCRA 220, 227
(2005), ci ing Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 472 Phil. 7;
428 SCRA 79 (2004).
6 Joaquin v. Navarro, 93 Phil. 257, 270 (1953).
7 De Luna v. Linatoc, 74 Phil. 15 (1942).
8 Buyco v. People, 95 Phil. 453 (1954).
9 De la Cruz v. Sosing, 94 Phil. 26 (1953).
10 Casica v. Villaseca, 101 Phil. 1205 (1957).
11 Lim Yhi Luya v. Court of Appeals, No. L-40258, Sep embe 11, 1980, 99
SCRA 668, 689.
12 Sacay v. Sandiganbayan, No . L-66497-98, J l 10, 1986, 142 SCRA 593.
53
The e i i e f e ab i hi g
edica a ac ice
Whoe e allege a fac ha he b den of p o ing i . Thi i a
ba ic legal p inciple ha eq all applie o ci il and c iminal ca e .
In a medical malp ac ice ca e, he plain iff ha he d of p o ing
i elemen , namel : (1) a duty of he defendan o hi pa ien ; (2)
he defendan breach of hi d ; (3) injury o he pa ien ; and (4)
proximate causation be een he b each and he inj ffe ed.17 In
ci il ca e , he plain iff m p o e he e elemen b a
p eponde ance of e idence.
_______________
13 Universal Motors v. Court of Appeals, No. L-47432, Jan a 27, 1992, 205
SCRA 448.
14 Alsua-Betts v. Court of Appeals, No . L-46430-31, J l 30, 1979, 92 SCRA
332.
15 Medina v. Asistio, Jr., G.R. No. 75450, No embe 8, 1990, 191 SCRA 218.
16 Abellana v. Dosdos, 121 Phil. 241; 13 SCRA 244 (1965).
17 Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio, 344 Phil. 323, 331-332; 278 SCRA 769, 778
(1997); Flores v. Pineda, 591 Phil. 699, 706; 571 SCRA 83, 91 (2008); Reyes v.
Sisters of Mercy Hospital, 396 Phil. 87, 95-96; 341 SCRA 760, 769 (2000).
540
_______________
541
The e i i e fai ed ee
a e e i e .
Wi ne : Well, I
, d ing he ope a ion of he
appendi , o Hono , i ho ld eall be ed ice hich
e call do ble.
Co : Wha o ld be he e l if he e i onl ingle?
Wi ne : We canno g a an [sic] he bleeding of he
ed blood e el , o Hono .
Co : So, he bleeding of he pa ien a ca ed b he
ingle e?
Wi ne : I .24
D . Re e e i ed ha he g ad a ed f om he Manila Cen al
Uni e i (MCU) College of Medicine and pa ed he medical
boa d e am in 1994.25 He e abli hed hi pe onal
_______________
542
543
544
Wi ne : Oka , I S P D F
B .
545
546
D . Re e i no an e pe i ne ho co ld p o e D . In o
alleged negligence. Hi e imon co ld no ha e e abli hed he
anda d of ca e ha D . In o a e pec ed o ob e e no a e ed
D . In o fail e o ob e e hi anda d. Hi e imon canno be
elied pon o de e mine if D . In o commi ed e o d ing he
ope a ion, he e e i of he e e o , hei impac on Lilian
p obabili of i al,
_______________
547
_______________
31 Di ec E amina ion of D . Ramo , TSN da ed J ne 6, 2003, p. 13.
32 Id., a p. 14.
54
_______________
Re i a i i a icab e
he he fai e b e ed e
ca e i i edia e a a e
he a a .
_______________
38 Malayan Insurance Co. v. Alberto, G.R. No. 194320, Feb a 1, 2012, 664
SCRA 791, 803-804.
39 Supra no e 22.
40 Cantre v. Go, 550 Phil. 637; 522 SCRA 547 (2007).
550
Petition denied.
_______________
41 Batiquin v. Court of Appeals, 327 Phil. 965, 971; 258 SCRA 334, 340 (1996).
42 Reyes v. Sisters of Mercy Hospital, supra no e 17 a p. 98; p. 772.
43 See Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana, 542 Phil. 464, 484; 513 SCRA 478,
495 (2007).
551
o0o
C gh 2020 Ce a B S , I c. A gh e e ed.