Title
Rosit vs. Davao Doctors Hospital
Case
G.R. No. 210445
Decision Date
Dec 7, 2015
The Supreme Court holds a doctor liable for negligence and awards damages to a plaintiff following a botched surgery.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 210445)

Facts:

  • Nilo B. Rosit (petitioner) was involved in a motorcycle accident on January 15, 1999, resulting in a fractured jaw.
  • An X-ray at Davao Doctors Hospital on January 16, 1999, confirmed the fracture.
  • Rosit was referred to Dr. Rolando G. Gestuvo, a specialist, who performed surgery on January 19, 1999.
  • Dr. Gestuvo used a metal plate and screws to stabilize the jaw but cut the screws instead of using smaller titanium screws available in Manila, believing Rosit could not afford them.
  • Post-surgery, Rosit experienced significant pain and difficulty with jaw movement.
  • An X-ray two days after surgery showed the screws were in contact with Rosit's molar.
  • Dr. Gestuvo referred Rosit to dentist Dr. Pangan, who determined another operation was necessary.
  • Rosit underwent corrective surgery in Cebu on February 19, 1999, where the screws and plate were replaced with smaller titanium ones, and the impacted molar was extracted.
  • Rosit sought reimbursement of P140,000 for corrective surgery expenses and P50,000 for future expenses from Dr. Gestuvo, who refused to pay.
  • Rosit filed a civil suit for damages and attorney's fees against Dr. Gestuvo and Davao Doctors Hospital, leading to Civil Case No. 27,354-99 in the RTC of Davao City.
  • The RTC found Dr. Gestuvo negligent and awarded damages to Rosit, while absolving DDH of liability.
  • Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC's decision, prompting the current petition.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstating the RTC's ruling that found Dr. Gestu...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court outlined the elements of medical negligence: duty, breach, injury, and proximate causation.
  • Expert testimony is typically required to establish the standard of care, but the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied here, allowing negligence to be inferred from the circumstances.
  • The Court found that:
    • The injury was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur without negligence.
    • The screws causing the injury were under Dr. Gestuvo's exclusive control.
    • The injury was not due to any voluntary action by Rosit.
  • Dr. Gestuvo's failure to inform Rosit about the availability of smaller titanium screws c...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.