Title
Dela Torre vs. Imbuido
Case
G.R. No. 192973
Decision Date
Sep 29, 2014
Carmen Dela Torre died post-surgeries; husband alleged medical negligence. Courts ruled no negligence proven, upheld unpaid hospital bills.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 1331)

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Clinical events: Carmen admitted around 11:30 p.m., February 2, 1992; cesarean section performed February 3, 1992; postoperative problems and diagnosis of UTI early February 4, 1992; second operation on February 12, 1992; death on February 13, 1992. Trial court decision: Regional Trial Court (Olongapo City, Branch 75) dated January 28, 2003. Court of Appeals decision: December 15, 2009 (reversing trial court). Supreme Court resolution: petition for review denied (decision reference in the prompt).

Facts as Found by the Parties

Carmen delivered a baby via cesarean section on February 3, 1992. She experienced postoperative abdominal pain, urinary difficulty, and was diagnosed with urinary tract infection and treated. By February 10 her abdomen was enlarging; Dr. Norma initially described it as flatulence. A second operation was recommended and performed on February 12, 1992; petitioner and Carmen signed consent for this procedure. Carmen’s condition worsened, she vomited dark red blood on February 13 and died that night. The hospital death certificate listed cardio‑respiratory arrest secondary to cerebrovascular accident, hypertension and chronic nephritis induced by pregnancy; the autopsy by Dr. Patilano attributed death to shock due to severe peritonitis with multiple intestinal adhesions status post cesarean section and exploratory laparotomy.

Trial Court Proceedings and Evidence

Pedrito filed a complaint for damages alleging respondents failed to exercise required professional diligence and were negligent in performing surgery. Respondents denied negligence, asserted appropriate care, and counterclaimed for unpaid hospital bills and sought damages. At trial, petitioner relied principally on the testimony and autopsy report of Dr. Patilano to establish causal connection between surgical care and Carmen’s death. Respondents presented testimony from Dr. Nestor explaining the medical necessity of the cesarean section and the subsequent exploratory laparotomy for intestinal obstruction due to adhesions, and relied on documentary evidence of consent and respondents’ medical conduct. Dr. Torres testified that Dr. Patilano did not examine certain vital organs during autopsy.

Trial Court Decision

The RTC credited Dr. Patilano’s testimony and autopsy findings, concluded respondents were negligent, and awarded actual damages, indemnity for death, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The award was premised on the trial court’s acceptance of the autopsy‑based conclusions that Carmen’s death was attributable to peritonitis and related surgical factors.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA reversed the RTC, finding that petitioner failed to establish that the respondents breached the standard degree of care required of medical practitioners or that any breach proximately caused Carmen’s death. The CA also allowed respondents’ counterclaim and ordered petitioner to pay the unpaid hospital bills, professional fees, and expenses in the stipulated amount of P48,515.58.

Issues Presented on Certiorari

The central issues were whether the respondents committed medical negligence in treating Carmen and whether petitioner proved, with competent expert evidence, that any alleged negligence was the proximate cause of death. Secondary issue was the validity of respondents’ counterclaim for unpaid hospital charges.

Governing Legal Standards for Medical Negligence

The Court applied settled principles: a medical malpractice claim requires proof that (1) a physician had a duty to the patient, (2) there was a breach of that duty measured by the degree of care, skill and diligence ordinarily exercised by physicians of the same general neighborhood and specialty, (3) injury occurred, and (4) proximate causation linking the breach to the injury. Proof of breach and causation ordinarily requires competent expert testimony establishing negligence and causation within a reasonable medical probability; verdicts cannot rest on speculation or conjecture.

Assessment of Expert Evidence and Autopsy Report

The Supreme Court agreed with the CA that the autopsy report and Dr. Patilano’s testimony were insufficient to establish the standard of care and causation. The Court observed that Dr. Patilano’s qualifications and specialization relevant to the obstetric and surgical issues were not established, that his conclusions were based solely on postmortem findings without adequate consideration of Carmen’s clinical course, medical history, or the emergency nature of the initial cesarean section, and that his autopsy did not appear to follow basic procedures (failure to examine several vital organs) as noted by Dr. Torres. Because Dr. Patilano’s findings were limited by methodological shortcomings and absence of comprehensive clinical context, they could not, by themselves, support a finding of breach or causal linkage to the respondents’ conduct.

Respondents’ Evidence and Proffered Justifications

Respondents presented testimony that the first cesarean section was necessary for full‑term pregnancy with pre‑eclampsia, fetal distress and active labor; that Carmen’s persistent hypertension justified extended monitoring; that the second operation addressed suspected intestinal obstruction due to adhesions; and that both Carmen and petitioner gave written consent for the second surgery. Dr. Nestor’s surgical training and long experience (since 1970) was relied upon to establish that the

...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.