Case Digest (G.R. No. 234851)
Facts:
Paolo Anthony C. De Jesus v. Dr. Romeo F. Uyloan, G.R. No. 234851, February 15, 2022, First Division, Gesmundo, C.J., writing for the Court. The petition is for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals' June 16, 2017 Decision and October 11, 2017 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 148192, which reversed the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 198 (RTC) orders of May 6 and August 26, 2016 denying motions to dismiss.Petitioner Paolo Anthony De Jesus sued respondents Dr. Romeo F. Uyloan (substituted by his wife Salvacion Uyloan), Asian Hospital and Medical Center (AHMC), and Dr. John Francois Ojeda for damages under Articles 1170 and 1173 of the Civil Code, arising from a cholecystectomy performed on September 15, 2010. The complaint alleges that after a September 13, 2010 sonogram diagnosed cholelithiasis, petitioner consented to a laparoscopic cholecystectomy at AHMC. During the September 15 operation, however, the surgeons allegedly converted to an open cholecystectomy without petitioner’s approval, caused severe blood loss requiring transfusion, and—according to later tests—cut and clipped the common bile duct instead of the cystic duct.
Petitioner was discharged on September 19, 2010 but experienced persistent pain and bile leakage; subsequent tests at another hospital revealed transection of the common bile duct, and petitioner underwent corrective surgery on November 19, 2010. He filed the civil complaint on November 10, 2015 seeking actual, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and alleging solidary liability of AHMC.
Respondents moved to dismiss largely on prescription (invoking Art. 1146), forum shopping and lack of jurisdiction. In Joint Orders dated May 6 and August 26, 2016 the RTC denied the motions, ruling prescription could not be resolved on the pleadings alone and finding no forum shopping. Dr. Uyloan filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion; the CA, in its June 16, 2017 Decision, reversed the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error in holding that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in denying the motions to dismiss on the ground of prescr...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)