Case Digest (G.R. No. 163753)
Facts:
Dr. Encarnacion C. Lumantas, M.D. v. Hanz Calapiz, G.R. No. 163753, January 15, 2014, Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Dr. Encarnacion C. Lumantas; respondent is Hanz Calapiz, represented by his parents Hilario Calapiz, Jr. and Herlita Calapiz.On January 16, 1995, the Calapiz spouses brought their eight‑year‑old son Hanz to the Misamis Occidental Provincial Hospital, Oroquieta City, for an emergency appendectomy. The petitioner performed the appendectomy and, with the parents’ consent, also performed a coronal circumcision the same occasion. The next day Hanz complained of penile pain with blisters, swelling of the testicles, and abnormal urination after the petitioner removed a catheter; the petitioner dismissed these concerns as normal and Hanz was discharged on January 30, 1995.
Hanz was readmitted on February 8, 1995, for an abscess between the base and shaft of the penis. He was referred to an urologist, Dr. Henry Go, who diagnosed a damaged urethra; Hanz underwent cystostomy and three subsequent operations to repair the urethra but full reconstruction was not achieved. Believing the damaging trauma resulted from the circumcision, Hanz’s parents filed a criminal complaint for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.
An information was filed on April 17, 1997 in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Oroquieta City; the accused pleaded not guilty on May 22, 1998. Pursuant to Supreme Court Circular No. 11‑99, the case was transferred to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, Oroquieta City, by order of April 30, 1999. At trial the prosecution presented witnesses including Dr. Rufino Agudera, who testified that Hanz had urethral stricture and cavernosal injury secondary to trauma but could not identify the specific cause of the trauma.
The petitioner denied criminal liability, explaining he found pus near the appendix requiring immediate surgery, used a congo instrument (thereby denying cauterization), and claimed the penile abscess derived from burst appendicitis. On August 6, 1999 the RTC acquitted the petitioner for insufficiency of evidence to convict criminally but, by the same decision, held that Hanz had in fact suffered injurious trauma from the circumcision and ordered the petitioner to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages.
On appeal the Court of Appeals (C...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the petitioner’s civil liability (award of moral damages) despite his acquittal for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)