Case Summary (G.R. No. 177407)
Factual Background
In February 1995, Editha Sioson sought treatment at Rizal Medical Center for lumbar pain. In 1999, diagnostic tests showed a non‐functioning left kidney and a normal right kidney. In September 1999, the left kidney was operated on, but the fully functional right kidney was allegedly removed instead. On February 18, 2000, Romeo Sioson filed a complaint with the BOM for gross negligence against four doctors, including Atienza.
Proceedings before the Board of Medicine
The BOM conducted hearings. After complainant evidence, Editha offered four certified photocopies of X-ray request forms (1996–1999) as Exhibits A–D to prove her kidneys’ anatomical positions. Atienza objected, claiming the copies were hearsay, unverified, violative of the best evidence rule, and thus inadmissible.
BOM’s Rulings on Documentary Evidence
By order dated May 26, 2004, the BOM admitted the formal offer of documentary evidence “for whatever purpose they may serve.” On October 8, 2004, it denied Atienza’s motion for reconsideration, explaining that admissibility would be determined by relevance and probative value at final resolution.
Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals
Atienza filed a Rule 65 petition in the Court of Appeals on December 6, 2004, challenging the BOM’s interlocutory orders admitting Exhibits A–D. The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit in a September 22, 2006 decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 87755).
Issues Presented
Procedural Issue
• Whether certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy to challenge the BOM’s interlocutory orders rather than appeal.
Substantive Issue
• Whether the CA committed reversible error by upholding the admission of Exhibits A–D, allegedly depriving Atienza of his property right (medical license) through admission of incompetent evidence.
Proper Remedy for Interlocutory Administrative Orders
The Supreme Court affirmed that interlocutory orders of an administrative tribunal are not appealable. When no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists under the Rules of Court, a party may invoke certiorari under Rule 65 for grave abuse of discretion. The Court found the CA correctly ruled that Atienza’s remedy lay in certiorari.
Admissibility of Evidence in Administrative Proceedings
The Court reiterated that administrative bodies are not strictly bound by technical evidence rules. Doubtful or technical objections should yield to a liberal admission policy, rejecting evidence only when plainly irrelevant or incompetent. Any defect in admissibility affects weight, not competence.
Judicial Notice and Probative Value
The Court recognized that the anatomical location of human kidneys is a matter of nature and subject to mandatory judicial notice under Rule 129, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court. Even if Exhibits A–D were excluded, the fact that Editha’s kidneys were ordinarily in their proper positions at the time of surgery would be p
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 177407)
Facts of the Case
- Private respondent Editha Sioson experienced lumbar pain in February 1995 and sought treatment at Rizal Medical Center (RMC).
- In 1999, she was referred to Dr. Pedro Lantin III at RMC; diagnostic tests showed a normal right kidney and a non-functioning, non-visualizing left kidney.
- She underwent a kidney operation in September 1999.
- On February 18, 2000, Romeo Sioson (Editha’s husband) filed before the Board of Medicine (BOM) a complaint for gross negligence and/or incompetence against Drs. Judd dela Vega, Pedro Lantin III, Gerardo Antonio Florendo, and petitioner Rico Rommel Atienza.
- The complaint alleged that the functional right kidney was mistakenly removed instead of the non-functioning left kidney.
Documentary Evidence Offered
- Editha formally offered Exhibits A–D, certified photocopies of X-ray request forms dated:
• December 12, 1996 (Annex 2)
• January 30, 1997 (Annex 3)
• March 16, 1996 (Annex 4)
• May 20, 1999 (Annex 16, draft of final report) - Purpose of Exhibits: To prove both kidneys were in proper anatomical locations at the time of surgery.
- Petitioner’s Objections: The photocopies were hearsay, not properly identified or authenticated, and thus incompetent and inadmissible.
Proceedings Before the Board of Medicine
- BOM Order (May 26, 2004): Admitted the formal offer of documentary evidence “for whatever purpose they may serve.” Hearing set for July 19, 2004.
- Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (filed thereafter): Denied by BOM Order dated October 8, 2004, explaining that admissibility is necessary first to assess probative value.