Case Summary (G.R. No. 95536)
Procedural History
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Oriental ruled in favor of Dr. Batiquin, finding hearsay and credibility issues in Dr. Kho’s evidence regarding the rubber fragment and crediting negative testimonies that denied use or tearing of rubber drains or gloves. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Dr. Batiquin negligent for leaving the rubber inside and awarding actual, moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by certiorari.
Issue
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in finding Dr. Batiquin negligent based on Dr. Kho’s testimony and whether positive testimony of a foreign body should prevail over negative denials, thereby justifying application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Examination of Evidence and Credibility
The Supreme Court found that Dr. Kho’s direct testimony—that she personally saw and removed a piece of rubber emitting pus—was clear, first-hand, and uncontradicted in substance, notwithstanding minor inconsistencies about its subsequent handling. Negative testimony by Drs. Batiquin and Sy, denying use of rubber drains or glove tearing, was deemed less persuasive than positive firsthand observation. Dr. Batiquin’s hearsay claim about Dr. Kho discarding the rubber carried no probative weight. Dr. Kho’s trustworthiness and absence of motive to falsify were affirmed.
Application of Res Ipsa Loquitur
All elements for invoking res ipsa loquitur were satisfied:
- The foreign object was under Dr. Batiquin’s exclusive control during surgery.
- Such an occurrence—retention of a surgical foreign body—does not happen absent negligence.
- No intervening cause existed, as Mrs. Villegas underwent no other abdominal procedure.
In the absence of a satisfacto
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 95536)
Historical and Professional Context
- Ancient legal systems imposed severe sanctions on physicians for malpractice (e.g., Code of Hammurabi’s “cut off his hand” penalty for surgical errors).
- The Hippocratic Oath established the ethical imperative to “abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous” and to practice medicine for the patient’s benefit.
- Modern medical ethics and jurisprudence prioritize preservation of life and public health, requiring physicians to exercise due care or face legal accountability.
Factual Background
- Dr. Victoria L. Batiquin served as Resident Physician (1978–1989) and Acting Head of Obstetrics and Gynecology (1987–1989) at Negros Oriental Provincial Hospital.
- Private respondent Flotilde G. Villegas underwent a planned cesarean section on September 21, 1988, performed by Dr. Batiquin with assistance.
- Mrs. Villegas remained hospitalized until September 27, 1988, paid a P1,500 professional fee, and was certified fit to work on November 7, 1988.
- Post-discharge, she developed recurrent fever, abdominal pain, and weight loss despite prescribed medication, prompting further consultation.
Discovery of Foreign Body and Second Operation
- On January 20, 1989, Dr. Ma. Salud Kho found Mrs. Villegas feverish, pale, tachypneic, with an abdominal mass and laboratory evidence of intra‐abdominal infection.
- Surgical re‐exploration revealed pus in both ovarian cysts and behind the uterus, and a piece of rubber (approx. 2″×¾″), resembling torn glove or drain material, embedded near the right ovary.
- Dr. Kho testified she personally saw the rubber and sent it to a Cebu pathologist, though the pathology report made no mention of it. Mrs. Villegas’s health improved after this second surgery.