Dela Torre v. Imbuido
Dela Torre v. Imbuido
RESOLUTION
REYES, J : p
When Carmen's stomach still grew bigger despite medications, Dr. Norma
advised Pedrito of the possibility of a second operation on Carmen. Dr. Norma,
however, provided no details on its purpose and the doctor who would perform
it. At around 3:00 p.m. on February 12, 1992, Carmen had her second
operation. Later in the evening, Dr. Norma informed Pedrito that "everything
was going on fine with [his] wife." 7
Dr. Patilano claimed that peritonitis could have been prevented through
proper medical procedures and medicines. He also stated that if the cause of
Carmen's death was actually cerebro-vascular accident, there would have been
ruptured blood vessels and blood clot in her head; but there were none in
Carmen's case. 18
Among those who testified to refute Pedrito's claim was Dr. Nestor. He
claimed that when Carmen was referred to him on February 3, 1992, she was in
full term uterine pregnancy, with pre-eclampsia, fetal distress and active labor
pains. A caesarian section operation became necessary to terminate the
pregnancy for her safety. Carmen was ready to go home four days after giving
birth, but was advised by the doctors to stay more because of her persistent
hypertension. 19 SCHIac
On January 28, 2003, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City,
Branch 75, rendered its Decision 24 in favor of Pedrito. The trial court gave
greater weight to the testimony of Dr. Patilano and thus disposed of the case as
follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, ordering the latter
to pay jointly and severally, the former, the following sums of money,
to wit:
Dissatisfied with the RTC ruling, the respondents appealed to the CA. On
December 15, 2009, the CA rendered its Decision reversing and setting aside
the decision of the RTC. For the appellate court, it was not established that the
respondents failed to exercise the degree of diligence required of them by their
profession as doctors. The CA also granted the respondents' counterclaim for
the amount of PhP48,515.58, as it held:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Olongapo City dated January 28, 2003 in Civil Case No. 165-0-92 is
hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
Plaintiff-appellee is directed to pay the unpaid balance for
hospital bills, professional fees and other expenses in the amount of
[PhP]48,515.58.
SO ORDERED. 26
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari in which Pedrito insists that
the respondents should be held liable for the death of Carmen.
The petition is denied. SDcITH
For the trial court to give weight to Dr. Patilano's report, it was necessary
to show first Dr. Patilano's specialization and competence to testify on the
degree of care, skill and diligence needed for the treatment of Carmen's case.
Considering that it was not duly established that Dr. Patilano practiced and was
an expert in the fields that involved Carmen's condition, he could not have
accurately identified the said degree of care, skill, diligence and the medical
procedures that should have been applied by her attending physicians.
Similarly, such duty, degree of care, skill and diligence were not
sufficiently established in this case because the testimony of Dr. Patilano was
based solely on the results of his autopsy on the cadaver of Carmen. His study
and assessment were restricted by limitations that denied his full evaluation of
Carmen's case. He could have only deduced from the injuries apparent in
Carmen's body, and in the condition when the body was examined. Judging
from his testimony, Dr. Patilano did not even take full consideration of the
medical history of Carmen, her actual health condition at the time of hospital
admission, and her condition as it progressed while she was being monitored
and treated by the respondents. There was also no reference to the
respondents' defense that the emergency caesarian section operation had to
be performed in order to protect the lives and safety of Carmen and her then
unborn child. For lack of sufficient information on Carmen's health condition
while still alive, Dr. Patilano could not have fully evaluated the suitability of the
respondents' decisions in handling Carmen's medical condition as it turned
critical.
On the other hand, the CA pointed out that Dr. Nestor, a surgeon,
possessed the reasonable degree of learning, skill and experience required by
his profession for the treatment of Carmen. The respondents also emphasized
in their pleadings before the RTC that Dr. Nestor had his training and
experience in surgery and obstetrics since 1970. Without sufficient proof from
the claimant on a different degree of care, skill and diligence that should be
expected from the respondents, it could not be said with certainty that a breach
was actually committed.
Moreover, while Dr. Patilano opined that Carmen died of peritonitis which
could be due to the poor state of the hospital equipment and medical supplies
used during her operation, there was no sufficient proof that any such fault
actually attended the surgery of Carmen, caused her illness and resulted in her
death. It is also significant that the Chief of the Medico-Legal Division of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
PNP Crime Laboratory Service, Dr. Torres, testified before the trial court that
based on the autopsy report issued by Dr. Patilano, the latter did not comply
with the basic autopsy procedure when he examined the cadaver of Carmen.
Dr. Patilano did not appear to have thoroughly examined Carmen's vital organs
such as her heart, lungs, uterus and brain during the autopsy. His findings were
then inconclusive on the issue of the actual cause of Carmen's death, and the
claim of negligence allegedly committed by the respondents.
As the Court held in Spouses Flores v. Spouses Pineda, et al., 31 the
critical and clinching factor in a medical negligence case is proof of the causal
connection between the negligence and the injuries. The claimant must prove
not only the injury but also the defendant's fault, and that such fault caused the
injury. A verdict in a malpractice action cannot be based on speculation or
conjecture. Causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability
based upon competent expert testimony, 32 which the Court finds absent in the
case at bar.
Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 12-30.
5. Id. at 32-33.
6. Id. at 33.
7. Id. at 33-34.
8. Id. at 34.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
9. Id. at 38.