Case Digest (G.R. No. 118231)
Facts:
Dr. Victoria L. Batiquin and Allan Batiquin v. Court of Appeals, Spouses Quedo D. Acogido and Flotilde G. Villegas, G.R. No. 118231, April 28, 1997, Supreme Court Third Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Dr. Victoria L. Batiquin (a Resident Physician and, from 1987 to September 1989, Acting Head of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Negros Oriental Provincial Hospital) and her husband appealed from a Court of Appeals decision reversing a Regional Trial Court judgment in a medical malpractice/damages action filed by private respondents Spouses Quedo D. Acogido and Flotilde G. Villegas. The trial court (Branch 30, RTC Negros Oriental) rendered judgment on December 21, 1990 dismissing the complaint; the Court of Appeals reversed on May 11, 1994 in CA-G.R. CV No. 30851 and awarded actual, moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
The underlying events began with a simple cesarean section performed by Dr. Batiquin on Flotilde Villegas on September 21, 1988 at the Negros Oriental Provincial Hospital. Mrs. Villegas remained confined until September 27, 1988, paid Dr. Batiquin a professional fee, but thereafter experienced recurring abdominal pain, fever and weight loss despite subsequent outpatient treatment by Dr. Batiquin. On January 20, 1989 Mrs. Villegas consulted Dr. Ma. Salud Kho, who, after diagnostic workup, performed a second operation and found pus in the pelvis, ovarian cysts filled with pus and a piece of rubber-like foreign material adjacent to the right side of the uterus; Dr. Kho testified she sent the material to a pathologist in Cebu but the surgical pathology report did not mention it and the alleged rubber was not produced in court.
At trial, the plaintiffs introduced documentary records and Dr. Kho’s testimony; the trial court treated several records as hearsay and doubted the sufficiency of Dr. Kho’s personal knowledge regarding the rubber, also noting Dr. Batiquin’s account that Dr. Kho told her she had thrown the rubber away. The RTC nonetheless resolved the facts in favor of petitioners and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the testimony, found Dr. Kho’s testimony credible and sufficient to establish that a rubber piece was left in Mrs. Villegas’ abdomen after the cesarean operation, applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and awarded P17,000.00 actual damages, P100,000.00 moral damages, P20,000.00 exemplary damages, and P25,000.00 attorney’s fees.
Petitioners brought a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, contending (1) the Court of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the petition raise purely factual questions not reviewable by the Supreme Court, or did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in overturning the trial court’s findings?
- Did Dr. Ma. Salud Kho’s testimony and the attendant evidence sufficiently establish that a piece of rubber was left in Mrs. Villegas’ abdomen and that Dr. Batiquin was negligent (applicability of res ipsa loquitur)?
- Were the damages awarded by the Court of Appeals supported by t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)