Case Digest (G.R. No. 244045)
Facts:
Jude Carlo M. Allarey, et al. v. Dr. Ma. Ditas F. Dela Cruz and Manila East Medical Center, Inc., G.R. No. 250919, September 02, 2024, the Supreme Court Third Division (Carandang, J., writing for the Court). Petitioners are Jude Carlo M. Allarey (Jude) in his own behalf and as father and natural guardian, minors Hero B. Allarey and Jude Carlo B. Allarey, Jr., Karen Valerie B. Salazar as guardian ad litem, and spouses Rufo C. Baco, Jr. and Rosalie C. Baco (collectively, the heirs of Marissa Baco); respondents are Dr. Ma. Ditas F. Dela Cruz (respondent physician) and Manila East Medical Center, Inc. (MEMCI) (respondent hospital).Marissa Baco (deceased) was admitted to MEMCI on August 28, 2006 at about 6:00 p.m. for premature labor and vaginal bleeding at an estimated gestational age of 30–31 weeks; she had a prior cesarean delivery and other risk factors. Respondent physician Dela Cruz had previously performed Marissa’s cesarean and provided prenatal care. While admitted the night of August 28, Marissa was given tocolysis and fluids; she remained under observation and was transferred to a private room once stable. On August 29, 2006, Marissa experienced renewed and then profuse bleeding; family members report delays and difficulty in securing type AB blood, alleged demand for a deposit for readmission to OR/DR, and other irregularities. An emergency cesarean section and subsequent hysterectomy were eventually performed; Marissa died on August 29, 2006 and her newborn Julia Carla Allarey died on August 30, 2006. The death certificate listed “Cardio Respiratory Arrest secondary to Hypovolemic shock; Placenta Accreta; T/C Amniotic Fluid Embolism.”
The heirs filed a complaint for damages based on quasi-delict against Dr. Dela Cruz and MEMCI. At trial petitioners’ expert, Dr. Olga M. Bausa, was not available for cross‑examination and her testimony was stricken, leaving petitioners to rely mainly on lay witnesses and documentary exhibits. Respondents presented expert testimony (Dr. German Tan Cardozo) and medical records showing that the emergency cesarean and hysterectomy were standard responses to placenta accreta and massive hemorrhage and that not all outcomes are controllable despite proper care; MEMCI also contended there was no employer–employee relationship with Dr. Dela Cruz and that it exercised due diligence in accrediting consultants.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint in a July 8, 2017 Decision, finding petitioners failed to prove lack of due care and crediting respondents’ experts and records. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied petitioners’ appeal in a May 30, 2019 Decision and denied their motion for reconsideration in a November 13, 2019...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable to this case?
- Were Dr. Dela Cruz and MEMCI negligent in the management and treatment of Marissa such that petitioners are entitle...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)