Title
Lumantas vs. Calapiz
Case
G.R. No. 163753
Decision Date
Jan 15, 2014
An 8-year-old boy suffered genital injuries post-circumcision; doctor acquitted of criminal negligence but held civilly liable for moral damages due to preponderant evidence of harm.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 163753)

Facts:

  • Circumstances Leading to Medical Procedures
    • On January 16, 1995, Spouses Hilario Calapiz, Jr. and Herlita Calapiz brought their 8-year-old son, Hanz Calapiz, to Misamis Occidental Provincial Hospital in Oroquieta City for an emergency appendectomy performed by Dr. Encarnacion C. Lumantas.
    • At petitioner’s suggestion and with parental consent, a coronal circumcision was performed immediately after the appendectomy “at no added cost.”
  • Post-Operative Complications and Further Treatment
    • On January 17, 1995, Hanz complained of penile pain with blisters and testicular swelling; abnormal urination followed the forcible removal of the catheter.
    • Despite parents’ protests, Hanz was discharged on January 30 with oral antibiotics; on February 8, he was readmitted for an abscess between the penile shaft and base.
  • Diagnosis, Surgeries, and Criminal Charge
    • Urologist Dr. Henry Go diagnosed a damaged urethra; Hanz underwent cystostomy and three subsequent urethral repair surgeries, some unsuccessful.
    • On April 17, 1997, Spouses Calapiz filed a criminal information for reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries; arraignment on May 22, 1998, plea of not guilty; case transferred to RTC on April 30, 1999.
  • Trial Proceedings
    • Prosecution presented Dr. Rufino Agudera as expert, who confirmed urethral stricture and cavernosal injury from trauma but could not identify the trauma’s cause.
    • Petitioner’s defense: claimed pus from burst appendicitis, proper use of “congo instrument” for circumcision, normal postoperative course, and that penile abscess was due to appendiceal rupture.
  • Decisions Below
    • Regional Trial Court (August 6, 1999): Acquitted petitioner for insufficiency of evidence as to criminal negligence; nonetheless awarded ₱50,000.00 moral damages for preponderant proof of injurious trauma.
    • Court of Appeals (February 20, 2003): Affirmed RTC’s civil liability finding despite acquittal; denial of reconsideration on April 28, 2004.

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming civil liability and awarding moral damages against Dr. Lumantas despite his acquittal of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.

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. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.