Title
Alano vs. Magud-Logmao
Case
G.R. No. 175540
Decision Date
Apr 14, 2014
A mother sued after her son’s organs were removed post-brain death without consent; SC ruled doctor acted in good faith, complying with law.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175540)

Organ Retrieval and Efforts to Locate Next of Kin

On March 2–3, NKI personnel, under Dr. Ona’s direction, conducted radio and television appeals and enlisted Police Station No. 5 and media outlets to locate Lugmoso’s (Logmao’s) family. After no relatives were found, Dr. Alano issued a memorandum authorizing organ retrieval “only if” reasonable efforts complied with RA 349 as amended—specifically, if next-of-kin remained unlocated. NBI Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Reyes verbally approved retrieval on March 3. The medical team removed and transplanted heart, kidneys, pancreas, liver, and spleen the same day.

Trial Court Ruling and Court of Appeals Decision

In 1988 Logmao’s mother discovered her son’s body on March 11 at La Funeraria Oro and filed suit on April 29. The RTC (2000) found Dr. Alano negligent under Article 2176, awarding actual, moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees for failing to allow reasonable time to locate next of kin before organ removal. The CA (2006) affirmed liability but deleted actual damages and reduced other awards.

Issues for Review

  1. Whether petitioner’s authorization was negligent or proximately caused respondent’s damages.
  2. Whether petitioner acted in good faith and pursuant to law under RA 349 as amended.
  3. Whether awards of moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees were contrary to jurisprudence.

Quasi-Delict Analysis and Applicable Civil Code Provisions

The Court observed that Article 2176 is not the sole basis for civil liability; Articles 19–21 and Article 20 (violation of law) also ground damages. Organ retrieval without consent implicates the doctrine of informed consent and RA 349’s substituted consent scheme, which falls under Article 20 (acts contrary to law) rather than Article 2176’s negligence framework.

Substituted Consent under RA 349 and Informed Consent Doctrine

RA 349 (as amended) provides that, after death, organ use may be authorized by nearest relative or, if unlocated after reasonable effort, by head of institution. Informed-consent jurisprudence requires disclosure and voluntary authorization. In this case, petitioner ensured comprehensive media appeals and NBI notification, satisfying the statutory “reasonable efforts” prerequisite and exercising professional judgment in light of organ viability constraints.

Assessment of Negligence, Causation, and Proof

The Court held that Dr. Alano, as a prudent director, fulfilled all legal duties before granting authorization. Time was of the essence given organ preservation limits (24 hours for kidneys, fewer for heart and liver). The misidentification originated at EAMC, and NKI staff could not verify identity due to

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.