Title
Batiquin vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 118231
Decision Date
Jul 5, 1996
Dr. Batiquin performed a cesarean on Mrs. Villegas; a rubber piece left in her abdomen caused infection. Court ruled negligence under res ipsa loquitur, awarding damages.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 118231)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Context
    • Dr. Victoria L. Batiquin (petitioner) served as Resident Physician (Jan. 9, 1978–Sept. 1989) and Acting Head of Obstetrics & Gynecology at Negros Oriental Provincial Hospital, Dumaguete City.
    • Spouses Quedo D. Acogido and Flotilde G. Villegas (respondents); Mrs. Villegas was a private prenatal patient of Dr. Batiquin.
  • Cesarean Section and Post-Operative Course
    • On September 21, 1988, Dr. Batiquin, assisted by Dr. Doris Teresita Sy, C.I. and O.R. Nurse Arlene Diones, and student nurses, performed a simple cesarean section; mother and baby were initially well.
    • Mrs. Villegas discharged on September 28, 1988; paid P1,500 “professional fee”; soon developed abdominal pain, fever, anorexia; took prescribed medications through December 1988; returned to work early November.
  • Second Consultation and Discovery of Foreign Body
    • On January 20, 1989, Mrs. Villegas consulted Dr. Ma. Salud Kho at Holy Child’s Hospital; examined as feverish, pale, tachypneic, with abdominal mass.
    • Dr. Kho performed laparotomy, found pus in both ovarian cysts, dirty purulence behind uterus, and a 2″×¾″ piece of rubber (resembling torn glove or drain) embedded beside the uterus; attributed patient’s infection and suffering to retained rubber.
  • Documentary Evidence and Trial Court Findings
    • Respondents offered Medical Certificate, Progress Record, Anesthesia Record, Nurse’s Record, and Discharge Summary noting rubber; trial court excluded these as hearsay, except the Medical Certificate.
    • Trial court also questioned Dr. Kho’s first-hand knowledge and credited Dr. Batiquin’s and Dr. Sy’s negative testimony that no rubber drain or glove tear occurred; dismissed respondents’ damage claim.
  • Court of Appeals Decision
    • On May 11, 1994, the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 30851) reversed the trial court, crediting Dr. Kho’s positive testimony of retained rubber causing infection.
    • Awarded respondents P17,000 actual damages; P100,000 moral damages; P20,000 exemplary damages; P25,000 attorney’s fees; costs of litigation.

Issues:

  • Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion by making factual findings not supported by the record?
  • Did the Court of Appeals exceed its jurisdiction in crediting testimonies alleged to be contradictory or false?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.