Case Digest (G.R. No. 177407)
Facts:
Rico Rommel Atienza v. Board of Medicine and Editha Sioson, G.R. No. 177407, February 09, 2011, the Supreme Court Second Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Rico Rommel Atienza is a physician disciplined in an administrative investigation before respondent Board of Medicine (BOM) arising from a kidney operation performed on private respondent Editha Sioson. On February 18, 2000, Editha’s husband, Romeo Sioson, filed with the BOM a complaint for gross negligence and/or incompetence against several doctors, including petitioner, alleging that the surgeons removed Editha’s functioning right kidney instead of her non-functioning left kidney.
During the BOM proceedings, Editha filed a formal offer of documentary evidence consisting of certified photocopies of X‑ray request forms and associated handwritten interpretative entries (marked Exhibits A–D), which she proffered to show that her kidneys had been in their proper anatomical locations at the time of surgery. Petitioner objected to admission of the exhibits on grounds that they were mere photocopies, not properly identified or authenticated, hearsay, and otherwise inadmissible and incompetent to prove the asserted fact.
The BOM admitted the formal offer in an Order dated May 26, 2004, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in an Order dated October 8, 2004, explaining that admission would allow the Board to assess probative value later. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing those BOM orders; the CA in CA‑G.R. SP No. 87755 dismissed the petition on September 22, 2006. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 wit...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to assail the BOM’s interlocutory orders admitting Editha Sioson’s documentary exhibits?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in upholding the BOM’s admission of the contested documentary exhibits, such that the BOM acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)