Case Digest (G.R. No. 165279)
Facts:
Dr. Rubi Li, Petitioner, vs. Spouses Reynaldo and Lina Soliman, as parents/heirs of deceased Angelica Soliman, G.R. No. 165279, June 07, 2011, Supreme Court En Banc, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Respondents Reynaldo and Lina Soliman sued petitioner Dr. Rubi Li, Dr. Leo Marbella, a certain Dr. Arriete and St. Luke’s Medical Center (SLMC) after their eleven‑year‑old daughter Angelica, diagnosed by biopsy with osteosarcoma, died thirteen days after the first cycle of intravenous chemotherapy administered at SLMC (admission Aug. 18, 1993; death Sept. 1, 1993). Angelica had undergone above‑knee amputation as primary therapy; Dr. Tamayo referred her for adjuvant chemotherapy to petitioner, a medical oncologist at SLMC. The PNP Crime Laboratory autopsy recorded cause of death as “Hypovolemic shock secondary to multiple organ hemorrhages and Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation”; SLMC’s death certificate listed status post chemotherapy.
On February 21, 1994 respondents filed a civil damages complaint alleging (1) negligence in the administration of chemotherapy and (2) lack of informed consent because petitioner allegedly had told them only three side effects (hair loss, vomiting, weakness) and had assured them of a high chance of recovery (95% claimed by respondents). Medical records were not produced; the trial and appellate courts therefore relied primarily on testimonial evidence from petitioner, the Solimans, and several non‑oncologist medical witnesses.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Legazpi City, Branch 8, rendered judgment on September 5, 1997, dismissing the complaint and finding petitioner not negligent in administering chemotherapy; the RTC ordered respondents to pay unpaid hospital bills (P139,064.43). The Court of Appeals (CA), however, by Decision dated June 15, 2004 (and Resolution Sept. 1, 2004 denying reconsideration), agreed that petitioner was not negligent in technique but held she failed to disclose all material risks of chemotherapy and therefore was liable for damages—ordering actual damages, funeral expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees (specific amounts in the CA decision). ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in finding petitioner liable for lack of informed consent despite the absence of competent expert proof defining the scope of required disclosure and causation?
- Did petitioner fail to disclose material risks of chemotherapy such that respondents’ consent was uninformed and caused injury (death), entitl...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)