Title
Atienza vs. Board of Medicine
Case
G.R. No. 177407
Decision Date
Feb 9, 2011
A doctor challenged the admission of evidence in a medical negligence case after a functional kidney was mistakenly removed; the Supreme Court upheld the Board of Medicine's decision, affirming liberal evidence rules in administrative proceedings.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 218406)

Evidence Offered and Its Nature

Editha personally made a formal offer of documentary evidence consisting of certified photocopies of X-ray request forms and related handwritten ultrasound interpretations (Exhibits A–D). These documents had previously been annexed to Dr. Lantin’s counter-affidavits filed with the City Prosecutor and before the BOM and were intended to show that the kidneys were in their proper anatomical locations prior to surgery.

Petitioner’s Objections to Admission of the Exhibits

Petitioner Atienza objected to admission of these exhibits on several grounds: they were mere photocopies and thus violated the best evidence rule; they were not properly identified or authenticated; they constituted hearsay; and they were incompetent to prove the matters for which they were offered. He contended that the admission of such evidence prejudiced his substantive rights and could result in deprivation of his professional license.

BOM Rulings on Admissibility and Reconsideration

The Board of Medicine admitted the formal offer of documentary evidence (Order dated May 26, 2004) “for whatever purpose they may serve,” and set further proceedings. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied (Order dated October 8, 2004). The Board explained that admitting proffered evidence allows the tribunal to assess its probative value during resolution of the case; preliminary exclusion based on technical or doubtful grounds was not required.

Procedural Issue: Proper Remedy and Justiciability

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that certiorari was the appropriate remedy to assail the interlocutory BOM orders because interlocutory orders are generally not separately appealable. Where there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the available remedy, provided there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The writ will not issue in the absence of such a showing.

Legal Standard for Reviewing Administrative Admission of Evidence

The controlling principle is that administrative tribunals are not bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable to courts. A liberal policy of admission is preferred in administrative proceedings: evidence should generally not be rejected on doubtful or technical grounds if not plainly irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent. Admissibility is distinct from probative weight: admissibility determines whether a circumstance or evidence may be considered at all; probative value determines how strongly it proves an issue.

Application: Whether BOM Exceeded Jurisdiction or Gravely Abused Discretion

The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the BOM in admitting the photocopied X-ray request forms. The Board acted within its jurisdiction and followed a permissible practice of admitting documents so their relevance and probative value could be assessed later. The appellate and Supreme Courts deferred to this administrative latitude, absent a showing that admission placed petitioner's rights beyond remedy or that the Board acted in excess of jurisdiction.

Interaction with Professional Rules and Substantive Prejudice

Petitioner invoked Section 20, Article I of the PRC Rules of Procedure, which allows the Rules of Court to apply only analogously or suppletorily and provides that technical errors in admission of evidence not prejudicial to substantive rights shall not vitiate proceedings. The courts held that admission of the photocopies did not prejudice petitioner’s substantive rights because the central fact they tended to prove—the location of the kidneys—was covered by disputable presumptions and judicial notice principles and could be established by other means.

Judicial Notice and Disputable Presumptions

The Court emphasized that certain facts need not be proved because they are established by judicial notice or disputable presumptions. Under Rule 131, Section 3 (disputable presumptions), facts that things occur according to the ordinary course of nature are presumptions that stand unless contradicted. The Court treated the anatomical placement of human kidneys as a fact of natural science within judicial notice: kidneys are ordinarily located in their proper anatomical positions. Thus, the contested evidence was not indispensable to prove that anatomical premise.

Best Evidence Rule and Its Relevance

The best evidence rule (Rule 130, Section 3) limits proof of the contents of a document to the original, subject to enumerated exceptions (lost originals, originals in custody of adverse party, voluminous records, public records, etc.). The Court held the rule inapplicable to the central inquiry of physician negligence: the case did not turn on proving the literal contents of the X-ray request forms but on whether the operating physicians removed the right instead of the left kidney. Moreover, circumstances showed that originals were unavailable (records office transfer), falling within the exception permitting secondary evidence

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms