Title
Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital vs. Spouses Capanzana
Case
G.R. No. 189218
Decision Date
Mar 22, 2017
A nurse suffered brain damage post-emergency C-section due to delayed oxygen administration; hospital held liable for nurses' negligence under corporate responsibility.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 189218)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Operative events: Emergency C-section performed 26 December 1997; deterioration began in early hours of 27 December 1997; Regina discharged from Cardinal Santos Hospital in vegetative state on 19 January 1998 and died 11 May 2005. Trial court (RTC) decision dated 29 December 2006; Court of Appeals decision dated 24 October 2008; Supreme Court decision rendered 22 March 2017. The petition to the Supreme Court was a Rule 45 petition raising primarily legal questions from the CA ruling.

Applicable Law and Legal Sources

Primary substantive law applied: Civil Code provisions on quasi-delict and employer liability — Article 2176 (general duty to prevent damage through fault or negligence) and Article 2180 (employer liability for employees; burden to prove diligence of a “good father of a family” in selection and supervision). Procedural and evidentiary rules referenced: Rules of Court, Rule 45 (appellate review); precedents cited include Ramos v. CA and Nacar v. Gallery Frames. Statutory background on nursing: R.A. 7164 (and later R.A. 9173) referenced regarding nursing duties and standards. The decision was rendered under the framework of the 1987 Constitution as the applicable constitutional era for decisions after 1990.

Facts: Medical Event Summary

Regina Capanzana, a 40‑year‑old nurse pregnant with her third child, underwent an emergency Caesarean section at petitioner hospital on 26 December 1997 after going into active labour. She initially stabilized and was transferred to a regular ward. Approximately 13 hours after operation (around 2:30 a.m. on 27 December 1997) she developed headache, chilliness, restlessness, shortness of breath, and cyanosis; she requested oxygen. An x‑ray showed pulmonary edema; she was transferred to ICU and placed on a mechanical ventilator. Impression at the hospital was amniotic fluid embolism. Later transfer to Cardinal Santos Hospital yielded a diagnosis of rheumatic heart disease with mitral stenosis and mild pulmonary hypertension; a cardio‑pulmonary arrest followed, producing hypoxic encephalopathy and resultant loss of speech, sight, hearing, and motor function, and later a vegetative state.

Claims, Defenses and Relief Sought

Plaintiffs alleged negligence by the attending physicians (failure to detect rheumatic heart disease, failure to obtain cardiology clearance, and failure to provide appropriate intra‑ and post‑operative management), negligence by nurses for delayed response and failure to promptly deliver oxygen, and hospital negligence for not making oxygen available and for inadequate supervision of staff. Plaintiffs sought actual, compensatory, moral and exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and other relief. Defendants denied liability: doctors asserted that no signs of heart disease were present on examination, that the operation was emergent and cardiac clearance was not feasible, and that amniotic fluid embolism was an unforeseeable event; the hospital and certain staff denied instruction to place a standby oxygen tank and denied negligent delay.

Trial Evidence and Key Testimony

Plaintiffs presented medical experts (cardiologists, neurologist/neurosurgeon) and lay testimony including Balad, who was watching Regina overnight and testified that nurses delayed responding to repeated buzz calls (10–20 minutes) and that Regina repeatedly asked for oxygen and showed signs of cyanosis. Defense presented attending physicians, nursing administration witnesses, and documentary nursing records. Discrepancies in nurse schedules, erased or inconsistent entries in Nurses’ Notes, and adverse personnel records concerning tardiness/absences among nurses were part of the record. The nurses’ deposition of Evelyn David was sought by petitioner late in the proceedings but the RTC denied leave.

RTC Findings and Rationale

The RTC found no negligence by Drs. Ramos and Santos, concluding that standard medical practices were observed and that the proximate cause of Regina’s vegetative state was an amniotic fluid embolism, an event not reasonably preventable. The RTC, however, found negligence by the nurses for delayed response in providing oxygen and in referring the patient to physicians; expert testimony supported that delay contributed to hypoxic encephalopathy. Because jurisdiction was obtained only over Florita Ballano among the on‑duty staff, the RTC held Ballano liable and dismissed the hospital and the physicians from liability, finding the hospital had exercised due diligence in selection and supervision based on its hiring and supervisory procedures.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Modifications

The CA affirmed the RTC’s factual finding that the proximate cause of Regina’s brain damage was hypoxic encephalopathy secondary to pulmonary/cardiac arrest on pulmonary edema, but it modified liability findings. The CA accepted that Drs. Ramos and Santos did not breach standard practices and affirmed their exoneration. The CA, unlike the RTC, declined to hold Ballano personally liable (noting uncertainty whether she was among the attending nurses and that she was a midwife rather than a nurse). The CA instead held the hospital directly liable under corporate responsibility (Article 2180) because it found the hospital had not proved adequate supervision and because the hospital admitted non‑availability of sufficient oxygen tanks on the ward — constituting gross negligence. The CA awarded the same damage sums as the RTC but made the hospital liable for payment.

Supreme Court: Standard for Medical Negligence and Deference to Findings of Fact

The Supreme Court reiterated that under Rule 45 it reviews questions of law and ordinarily defers to factual findings of the lower courts, absent exceptional circumstances. It confirmed the legal standard for medical negligence requires proof by preponderance of duty, breach, injury, and proximate causation; medical expertise is employed to establish standards and causation. The Court accepted the lower courts’ factual findings that nurses delayed responding to Regina’s repeated calls, that oxygen delivery was delayed (testimony placed the delay at 10–20 minutes), and that hypoxic brain injury can occur within five minutes of oxygen deprivation. The Court therefore affirmed the breach by nurses and the causal link between that breach (delayed oxygenation and delayed referral) and Regina’s hypoxic encephalopathy.

Supreme Court: Employer Liability — Selection vs Supervision

Applying Article 2180 in relation to Article 2176, the Court noted that employer liability is direct once employee negligence is established, and the employer must prove it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in both selection and supervision to be exonerated. The Court found the hospital had presented credible evidence of a rigorous selection/hiring process, but the preponderance of evidence supported the CA’s conclusion that the hospital failed to prove adequate supervision. The Court emphasized that proof of mere policies or hierarchical structures is insufficient; there must be evidence of actual implementation, monitoring, and disciplining. Documentary and testimonial inconsistencies (contradictory duty rosters, altered entries, omitted Nurse’s Notes pages, personnel records showing habitual tardiness and absenteeism without sanction) supported the conclusion that the hospital did not discharge its supervisory burden. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed direct liability of the hospital for its nurses’ negligence under Articles 2176 and 2180.

Supreme Court: Medical Causation Disposition (Amniotic Fluid Embolism vs Rheumatic Heart Disease)

The Court accepted the lower courts’ determinatio

...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.