G.R. No. 124354 Case Digest

G.R. No. 124354, December 29, 1999

Rogelio Ramos and Erlinda Ramos (as guardians)

vs. Court of Appeals

Ponente: Kapunan

Issue:

The court is called upon to rule whether a surgeon, an anesthesiologist and a hospital should be made liable for the unfortunate comatose condition of a patient scheduled for cholecystectomy.

Facts:

Erlinda Ramos experiencing a discomfort allegedly caused by the stone in her gall bladder sought professional advice. She was advised to undergo an operation for the removal of a stone in her gall bladder. She underwent series of examination and was declared fit for surgery.  Through the intercession Dr. Buenviaje, Erlinda and her husband met Dr. Hosaka and agreed to have the operation on June 17, 1985.

On the day of the operation, (according to Dr. Hosaka) something went wrong during the intubation. Rogelio, the husband reminded the doctor that the condition of his wife would not have happened, had he looked for a good anesthesiologist. Due to such, Erlinda stayed at the ICU for a month.

The petitioners filed a civil case for damages with the RTC of Quezon City against the respondents alleging negligence in the management and care of Erlinda Ramos. During the trial, the plaintiff presented the testimonies of Dean Herminda Cruz and dr. Gavino (present during the operation) to prove that the sustained by Erlinda was due to lack of oxygen in her brain caused by the faulty management of her airway by the respondent during the anesthesia phase. Respondent relied on the expert testimony of Dr. Jamora, a pulmonologist, to the effect that the cause of brain damage was Erlinda’s allergic reaction to the anesthetic agent.

After considering the evidences, RTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioners. Private respondents interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. CA rendered a decision reversing the findings of the RTC.  The decision of the CA was mistakenly received and has caused for the expiration of the reglementary period for the petitioners. The petitioners then filed for a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, however the CA denied the motion for extension.

In aid of a new counsel, the petitioners were granted extension of 30 days. The petitioners alleged the following issues: (a) CA erred in putting much reliance on the testimonies of respondents DR. Guttierrez, Dr. Calderon and Dr. Jamora; (b) in finding that the negligence of the respondents did not cause the unfortunate comatose condition of the petitioner; (c) in not applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor [the thing speaks for itself]

Held:

(1)    The denial of reglementary period is erroneous, because the delay is attributable to the fact that the decision was not sent to the counsel on records of the petitioners. It is elementary that when a party is represented by counsel, all notices should be sent to the party’s lawyer at his given address.

(2)    Res ipsa loquitor 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 an explanation. This maxim is not applicable for substantive law thus mere invocation and application of the doctrine does not dispense with the requirement of proof of negligence. Before the doctrine may be applied, the following requisites must be present: (a) the accident is a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (b) it is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant of defendants; (c) the possibility of contributing conduct which would make the plaintiff responsible is eliminated. [The control must be shown especially]. Medical malpractice does not escape from the application of this doctrine. Applying the maxim, we find that the damage caused by Erlinda is attributable to the negligence of her doctors.

(3)    As to the testimonies relied by the CA, we disagree. 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. Dr. Jamora does not qualify as an expert witness based on the standard set by the rules of evidence [Sec. 49. Opinion of expert witness – the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence.]. The alleged allergic reaction has no proof as well.

(4)    The court believes that the faulty intubation is the proximate cause of the comatose condition of the patient. Proximate cause is a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.

The doctors as well as the hospital was held liable for the injury incurred by Erlinda, due to their negligence in the operation and management for the hospital.