Title
St. Martin Polyclinic, Inc. vs. LWV Construction Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 217426
Decision Date
Dec 4, 2017
A medical clinic declared a worker fit for employment; later diagnosed with HCV abroad. Courts ruled no negligence proven, dismissing claims for damages.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 217426)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Context
    • LWV Construction Corporation (Respondent) is engaged in recruiting Filipino workers for deployment to Saudi Arabia.
    • St. Martin Polyclinic, Inc. (Petitioner) is a GAMCA-accredited medical center authorized to conduct pre-deployment medical examinations.
  • Medical Examination and Deployment
    • On January 10–11, 2008, Respondent referred applicant Jonathan V. Raguindin to Petitioner; Petitioner issued a Medical Report dated January 11, 2008, declaring him “fit for employment.”
    • Respondent thereafter deployed Raguindin to Saudi Arabia, incurring approximately ₱84,373.41 in deployment expenses.
  • Subsequent HCV Findings and Repatriation
    • On March 24, 2008, the General Care Dispensary in Saudi Arabia tested Raguindin and found him positive for hepatitis C virus (HCV); a re-examination on April 28, 2008 confirmed the result.
    • Based on these findings, the Saudi Ministry of Health required Raguindin’s repatriation to the Philippines.
  • Litigation History
    • Respondent filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) seeking actual damages of ₱84,373.41 and attorney’s fees, alleging Petitioner’s reckless issuance of the “fit for employment” report.
    • Petitioner denied liability, raising defenses of lack of privity, lack of jurisdiction, prematurity, and expiration of the Medical Report.
    • The MeTC awarded actual damages; the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed; the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the award to temperate damages of ₱50,000. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Whether Petitioner was negligent in issuing the Medical Report declaring Raguindin “fit for employment.”
  • Whether Respondent sufficiently proved negligence and causation to hold Petitioner liable for damages.

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.