Case Digest (G.R. No. 159132)
Facts:
Fe Cayao-Lasam v. Spouses Claro and Editha Ramolete, G.R. No. 159132, December 18, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Austria‑Martinez, J., writing for the Court.On July 28, 1994, Editha Ramolete (respondent and then three months pregnant) was admitted to Lorma Medical Center after vaginal bleeding; Dr. Fe Cayao‑Lasam (petitioner) advised admission and arranged for medication and a pelvic sonogram showing weak fetal cardiac pulsation. Repeat sonogram the next day still showed weak pulsation and no fetal movement, and, because of persistent profuse bleeding, petitioner advised a Dilation and Curettage (D&C) which she performed on July 30; Editha was discharged July 31 and advised to return for follow‑up but did not do so.
On September 16, 1994 Editha returned with severe abdominal pain and vomiting; attending physicians found massive intra‑abdominal hemorrhage and a ruptured uterus, necessitating a hysterectomy that rendered her sterile. On November 7, 1994 Editha and her husband filed a complaint for gross negligence and malpractice with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), alleging petitioner failed to examine, properly manage, or remove the fetus during the D&C.
On March 4, 1999 the Board of Medicine (the Board) of the PRC rendered a Decision exonerating petitioner, finding the case consistent with an interstitial ectopic pregnancy and that the D&C could not have reached the site. On November 22, 2000 the PRC reversed the Board and revoked petitioner’s license to practice medicine. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) styled under Rule 43 and alternatively as certiorari under Rule 65.
In a July 4, 2003 Decision the CA (penning justice: Hakim S. Abdulwahid) dismissed the petition as improperly brought under Rule 43 because PRC was not listed among enumerated quasi‑judicial agencies and further held that, if treated as certiorari, petition was premature because the Medical Act (R.A. No. 2382, Sec. 26) provides appeal to the Office of the President. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supre...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the PRC excluded from the coverage of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court so that the CA correctly dismissed petitioner’s Rule 43 petition?
- May a complainant appeal a Board of Medicine decision to the PRC, and does the principle of double jeopardy bar such appeal?
- Was the PRC’s revocation of petitioner’s license supported by the requisite expert evidence and by proof of medical malpractice (duty, breach, injury, proximate causation)?
- Were the PRC proceedings void for lack of due process because respondents failed to prove se...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)