8/11/2019 Torts July 22

1/11

DR BATIQUIN v CA

Dr. Batiquin was a resident physician and Gynecologist at the Negros Oriental Provincial Hospital

Mrs. Villegas, a married woman, was her patient. She submitted herself for prenatal care around 9/88

Dr. Batiquin along with medical staff performed a simple caesarean section on Mrs. Villegas and after 45

minutes, child was borne

Villegas was confined for 6 days after, then given a Medical Cert.deeming her fit to go back to work

Soon after leaving the hospital, she began to suffer recurring abdominal pains and fever. She was merely

prescribed medicines and took it for 3 months

Villegas couldnt bear the pain anymore, so after 3 months she sought a second opinion from Dr. KHO

Evidence shows that when Dr. Kho examined Villegas, she found an abdominal mass one finger below

the umbilicus, suspected to be a cyst.

This turned out to be a piece of plastic, which was rubber drain likeleft behind during previous

operation

Dispute arose in the presentation of evidence to the Trial Court. There were 2 disputing claims by Dr.

Kho: 1) She threw away the piece of rubber 2) It was sent to the Pathologist in Cebu

[RTC]favored Dr. Batiquin, [CA]reversed the decision, stating that the fault or negligence of Dr. Batiquin

can be established by mere preponderance of evidence.

Issue: W/N Dr. Batiquin is liable? YES

Held: Testamentary evidence notwithstanding, Dr. Batiquin's statement cannot belie the fact that Dr.

Kho found a piece of rubber near private respondent Villegas's uterus.

Dr. Batiquin was claiming that the operation went well, that there was no tear in their gloves, hence the

plastic rubber like drain could not have possibly come from them. But the trial court failed to

recognize that the assertions of Drs. Batiquin and Sy were denials or negative testimonies. Well-settled

is the rule that positive testimony is stronger than negative testimony.

Considering that the court has assessed Dr. Kho to be a credible witness, her positive testimony [that apiece of rubber was found in Villegas abdomen] prevails over the negative testimony of petitioners.

Res ipsa loquitur: "Where the thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the

defendant, and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen in those who

have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of an explanation

by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care."

In the instant case, all the requisites for recourse to the doctrine are present. First, the caesarean

operation was under the exclusive control of Dr. Batiquin. Thus, Villegas is bereft of direct evidence as to

the exact cause of the foreign object finding its way into her body, which, needless to say, does not

occur unless through the intersection of negligence. Second, Villegas underwent no other operation

which could have caused such. Thus it stands to reason that such could only have been a by-product ofthe caesarean section performed by Dr. Batiquin. Petitioners, in this regard, failed to overcome the

presumption of neglicgence arising from resort to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

8/11/2019 Torts July 22

2/11

GARCIA-RUEDA V PASCASIO (OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN)

Florencio, husband of petitioner Leonila Garcia-Rueda, underwent surgery at UST hospital to remove a

stone blocking his ureter. He was attended by surgeon Dr. Antonio, and anesthesiologist Dr. Reyes

6 hours after surgery, Florencio died of complications of "unknown cause," said officials of UST Hospital.

Not satisfied with the findings of the hospital, petitioner requested NBI to conduct an autopsy on her

husband's body. Consequently, the NBI ruled that Florencio's death was due to lack of care by the

attending physician in administering anaesthesia.

Pursuant to its findings, the NBI recommended that Dr. Antonio and Dr. Reyes be charged for Homicide

through Reckless Imprudence before the Office of the City Prosecutor.

!!!PROCEDURAL STARTS HERE:!!! During the preliminary investigation (PI), the case was initially

assigned to Prosecutor Israel, who inhibitedhimself because he was related to the counsel of one of the

doctors. Thus, the case was re-raffled to Prosecutor Leono who was, disqualified on motion of the

petitioner since he disregarded prevailing laws and jurisprudence regarding PI. The case was then

referred to Prosecutor Carisma, who issued a resolution that only Dr. Reyes be held criminally liable

and that the complaint against Dr. Antonio be dismissed.

The case took another perplexing turn when Assistant City Prosecutor Sioson, in the "interest of justice

and peace of mind," recommended that the case be re-raffled on the ground that Prosecutor Carismawas partial to the petitioner. Thus, the case was transferred to Prosecutor Dimagiba, where an about

face occurred again with the endorsement that the complaint against Dr. Reyes be dismissed and

instead,that information be filed against Dr. Antonio.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, questioning the findings of Prosecutor Dimagiba.

Pending MR resolution, the investigative "pingpong" continued when the case was again assigned to

Prosecutor Gualberto, who recommended that Dr. Reyes be included in the criminal information of

Homicide thru Reckless Imprudence.While the recommendation of Prosecutor Gualberto was pending,

the case was transferred to Senior State Prosec Arizala, who exonerated Dr. Reyes from any wrongdoing

This resolution which was approved by both City Prosecutor Macaraeg and City Prosecutor Guerrero.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed graft charges specifically for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 3 against

Prosecutors Guerrero, Macaraeg, and Arizala for manifest partiality in favor of Dr. Reyes before theOffice of the Ombudsman. However, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of evidence.

In fine, petitioner assails the exercise of the discretionary power of the Ombudsman to review the

recommendations of the government prosecutors and to approve and disapprove the same.

ISSUE:Whether or not expert testimony is necessary to prove the negligent act of the respondent.YES

RULING:After autopsy, no less than the NBI declared that there was indeed negligence on the part of

the attending physicians in administering the anaesthesia. The fact of want of competence or diligence

is evidentiary in nature, the veracity of which can best be passed upon after a full-blown trial, which

needs the guidance of medical experts. Clearly, the City Prosecutors are not in a competent position to

pass judgment on such a technical matter, especially when there are conflicting evidence and

findings. The bases of a partys accusation &defenses are better ventilated at the trial proper than at PI.

There are 4 elements in medical negligence cases: duty, breach, injury and proximate causation.

Evidently, when the victim employed the services of Dr. Antonio and Dr. Reyes, a physician-patient

relationship was created. The breach of these professional duties of skill and care, or their improper

performance, whereby the patient is injured in body or in health, constitutes actionable malpractice.

Instead of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices, proper action is to appeal the resolution of the City

Prosecutors dismissing the criminal complaint to the Secretary of Justice. Petition dismissed.

8/11/2019 Torts July 22

3/11

DR. RUBI LI V SPOUSES SOLIMAN

Solimans 11-yr daughter Angelica, underwent a biopsy of the mass located in her lower extremity at St.

Lukes Medical Center

Results showed that Angelica was suffering from osteosarcoma, a highly malignant bone cancer

As primary intervention, Angelicas right leg was amputated by Dr. Tamayo to remove the tumor. To minimize spread, chemotherapy was suggested by Dr. Tamayo, who then referred Angelica to

another doctor at St. Lukes, Dr. Rubi Li, a medical oncologist.

On 8/18/93 Angelica was admitted to SLMC. However, she died on September 1, just eleven (11) days

after the (intravenous) administration of the first cycle of the chemotherapy regimen.

Because SLMC refused to release a death certificate without full payment of their hospital bill,

respondents brought the cadaver of Angelica to the PNP Crime Lab at Camp Crame for post-mortem

examination. The Medico-Legal Report issued indicated the cause of death as Hypovolemic shock

secondary to multiple organ hemorrhages and Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation.[5]

Spouses filed a damage suit[7]against petitioner, and SLMC, charging them with negligence thru careless

administration of the chemotherapy drugs

Further, it was specifically averred that petitioner assured the respondents that Angelica would recoverin view of 95% chance of healing with chemotherapy (Magiging normal na ang anak nyo basta ma-

chemo. 95% ang healing) and when asked regarding the side effects, petitioner mentioned only slight

vomiting, hair loss and weakness (Magsusuka ng kaunti. Malulugas ang buhok.

Manghihina). Respondents claimed that they would not have given their consent to chemotherapy had

petitioner not falsely assured them of its side effects.

Since the medical records of Angelica were not produced in court, the trial and appellate courts had to

rely on testimonial evidence; The following chronology of events was gathered:

Angelica was admitted to chemo and her health was continuously failing. She was bleeding out. She died

due to septicemia, or overwhelming infection, which caused Angelicas other organs to fail. Petitioner

attributed this to the patients poor defense mechanism brought about by the cancer itself.

Dr. Vergara of the PNP crime lab opined that the death is due to the chemical agents in the drugs given

to the victim, which caused platelet reduction resulting to bleeding which led to death.

Dr. Balmaceda stressed that the patient or relatives must be informed of all known side effects based on

studies and observations, even if such will aggravate the patients condition.

[RTC] dismissed the complaint, held that despite Dr. Lis skill and all efforts said patient died.

Using the standard of negligence in Picart v. Smith, RTC declared that Dr. Li has taken the necessary

precaution against the chemos adverse effects, and that a wrong decision is not by itself negligence.

[CA] found Dr. Li negligent, because of failing to fully explain all the side effects of the procedure.

ISSUE: W/N Dr. Li can be held liable for failure to fully disclose serious side effects to the parents of the

child patient who died while undergoing chemotherapy, despite the absence of finding that petitioner

was negligent in administering the said treatment. NO, DR LI NOT LIABLE

HELD:Examining the evidence on record, we hold that YES there was adequate disclosure of material

risks inherent in the chemotherapy procedure performed with the consent of Angelicas parents.

Medical Malpractice or Medical Negligence = claim which a victim has in order to redress a wrong

committed by a medical professional which has caused bodily harm. To successfully pursue such a

claim, a patient must prove * that the doctor either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/165279.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/165279.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/165279.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/165279.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/165279.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/165279.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/165279.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/165279.htm#_ftn6

8/11/2019 Torts July 22

4/11

health care provider would have done, or * that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent

provider would not have done; & that failure or action caused injury.

There are four essential elements a plaintiff must prove in a malpractice suit based on the doctrine of

informed consent: (1) the physician had a duty to disclose material risks; (2) he failed to disclose or

inadequately disclosed those risks; (3) as a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, thepatient consented to treatment she otherwise would not have consented to; and (4) plaintiff was

injured by the proposed treatment. The gravamen in an informed consent case requires the plaintiff to

point to significant undisclosed information relating to the treatment which would have altered her

decision to undergo it. (Cobbs v Grant)

The element of ethical duty to disclose material risks in the proposed medical treatment cannot thus be

reduced to one simplistic formula applicable in all instances. Further, in a medical malpractice action

based on lack of informed consent, the plaintiff must prove both the duty and the breach of that duty

through expert testimony. Such expert testimony must show the customary standard of care of

physicians in the same practice as that of the defendant doctor.

In this case, the testimony of Dr. Balmaceda and Dr. Vergara does not qualify as expert testimony to

establish the standard of care in obtaining consent for chemotherapy treatment. They are not

oncologists. In the absence of expert testimony in this regard, the Court feels hesitant in defining the

scope of mandatory disclosure in cases of malpractice based on lack of informed consent, much less set

a standard of disclosure that, even in foreign jurisdictions, has been noted to be an evolving one.

As we progress toward the twenty-first century, we now realize that the legal standard of disclosure is

not subject to construction as a categorical imperative.Whatever formulae or processes we adopt are

only useful as a foundational starting point; the particular quality or quantity of disclosure will remain

inextricably bound by the facts of each case.

8/11/2019 Torts July 22

5/11

Contra: Doctors are not guarantors of care

DR. CERENO & DR. ZAFE v CA

At about 9pm of Sep 16, 1995, Raymond Olavere (Raymond), a victim of a stabbing incident, was rushed

to the E.R. of Bicol Regional Medical Center. His his parents & uncle then arrived After medical treatment, Dr. Realuyo recommended that Raymond undergo "emergency exploratory

laparotomy." Dr. Realuyo then requested Raymonds parents to procure 500 cc of type "O" blood

needed for the operation. They complied and went to the Red Cross to get blood

Raymond was wheeled inside the operating room. During that time, the surgeons, Drs. Zafe and Cereno,

were busy operating on gunshot victim Charles. Assisting them was Dr. Tatad, who was the only senior

(& head) anesthesiologist on duty that night.

After gunshot wound victim, however, an emergency case involving Triplets required operation. Dr.

Tatad was already working with the obstetricians who will perform surgery on the triplets. With no

anesthesiologist available, Drs. Zafe and Cereno decided to postpone Raymonds operation.

Drs. Zafe and Cereno, in the meantime, proceeded to examine Raymond and they found that the latters

blood pressure was normal and "nothing in him was significant."

At 11:15 P.M., the Olaveres returned to the BRMC with a bag containing the requested 500 cc type "O"

blood. They handed over the bag of blood to Dr. Realuyo.

After Dr. Tatad finished her work with the triplets, the Doctors immediately started their operation on

Raymond. Upon opening of Raymonds thoracic cavity, they found that 3,200 cc of blood was stocked

therein. The blood was evacuated and petitioners found a puncture at the inferior pole of the left lung.

In his testimony, Dr. Cereno stated that considering the loss of blood suffered by Raymond, he did not

immediately transfuse blood because he had to control the bleeders first.

Blood was finally transfused on Raymond at 1:40am. At 1:45, while operation was on-going, Raymond

suffered cardiac arrest. Raymond was declared dead at 2:30 A.M. The death certificate indicated the

immediate cause of death as "hypovolemic shock" = organ functions stopped due to blood loss

Claiming that there was negligence on the part of those who attended to their son, the parents of

Raymond, filed before the RTC a complaint for damages

[RTC] found petitioner liable, and negligent in not immediately conducting surgery on Raymond

[CA] affirmed, finding petitioners guilty of gross negligence

ISSUE:W/N CA erred in affirming that Doctors were liable YES. Doctors WERE NOT LIABLE

Medical Malpractice or Medical Negligence is a claim which a victim has in order to redress a wrong

committed by a medical professional which has caused bodily harm. To successfully pursue such a

claim, a patient must prove * that the doctor either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent

health care provider would have done, or * that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent

provider would not have done; & that failure or action caused injury. The best way to prove these isthrough the opinions of expert witnesses belonging in the same general line of practice.

From the testimony of Dr. Tatad herself, it is clear that the matter of requesting for a standby

anaesthesiologist is not within the full discretion of Dr. Cereno and Zafe. The "BRMC protocol" described

in the testimony requires the petitioners to course such request to Dr. Tatad who, as head

anesthesiologist, has the final say of calling the standby anesthesiologist.

8/11/2019 Torts July 22

6/11

As revealed by the facts, after finishing up with the gunshot victim, Dr. Tatad was already assisting in the

operation of the triplets. Drs. Zafe and Cereno then proceeded to examine Raymond and they found

that the latters blood pressure was normal and "nothing in him was significant."

Given that Dr. Tatad was already engaged in another urgent operation and that Raymond was not

showing any symptom of suffering from major blood loss requiring an immediate operation, We find it

reasonable that petitioners decided to wait for Dr. Tatad to finish her surgery and not to call the standby

anesthesiologist anymore. There is, after all, no evidence that shows that a prudent surgeon faced with

similar circumstances would decide otherwise.

Causation not proven: In medical negligence cases, it is settled that the complainant has the burden of

establishing breach of duty on the part of the doctors or surgeons. It must be proven that such breach

has a causal connection to the resulting death. It CANNOT be based on speculation or conjecture.

Causation must be proven within a reasonable medical probability based on expert testimony. The

parents of Raymond failed - to prove negligence, and to prove that petitioners fault caused injury.

8/11/2019 Torts July 22

7/11

DR. NINEVETCH CRUZ V CA

Rowena De Ocampo, accompanied her mother to the Perpetual Help Clinic in Laguna.

Lydia was examined by Dr. Cruz who found a "myoma" in her uterus = scheduled her for a hysterectomy

According to Rowena, she noticed that the clinic was untidy and dusty, she tried to persuade her mother

not to proceed with the operation, but operation was still slated on schedule by DR CRUZ

Another doctor went out intermittently to ask for additional medicine: Tagamet ampules, type A

blood, which they complied with. They were informed them that the operation was finished.

30 mins after, they were instructed to buy more blood. They failed to comply because there was no

more blood available at the source. Thereafter, a person arrived to donate and transfuse blood

Rowena then noticed her mother gasping for breath. Apparently the oxygen supply had run out. They

went out to get oxygen, and Lydia was given the fresh supply. But at around 10PM she went into shock

and her blood pressure dropped to 60/50. Lydia's unstable condition necessitated her transfer to the

San Pablo District Hospital so she could be connected to a respirator and further examined.

The transfer to the San Pablo City District Hospital was without the prior consent of Rowena nor of therelatives who found out about the intended transfer only when an ambulance arrived to take her to the

San Pablo District Hospital. Rowena and her other relatives followed thru a tricycle.

Upon arrival at the San Pablo District Hospital, she was wheeled into the OR and the petitioner (DR

NINIVETCH CRUZ) and Dr. Ercillo re-operated on her because there was blood oozing from the

abdominal incision. Lydia was already in shock and her blood pressure was already 0/0.

While petitioner was closing the abdominal wall, the patient died. Her death certificate states "shock" as

the immediate cause of death & "Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC)" as antecedent cause.[22]

[MTCC] convicted Dr. CRUZ, stating the untidy hospital, and the necessity of transfer indicates that there

was something wrong with the initial operation

[RTC] affirmed; citing that the lack of medicines show that petitioner had not prepared for any

unforeseen circumstances before going into the first surgery

ISSUE:W/N Dr. CRUZ is liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide NO

The elements of reckless imprudence are: (1) that the offender does or fails to do an act; (2) that the

doing or the failure to do that act is voluntary; (3) that it be without malice; (4) that material damage

results from the reckless imprudence; and (5) that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of

the offender, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical

condition, and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.

Whether or not a physician has committed an "inexcusable lack of precaution" in the treatment of his

patient is to be determined according to the standard of care observed by other members of the

profession in good standing under similar circumstances

Despite assertions on uncleanliness and lack of medicines = though it may be true that the

circumstances pointed out by the courts below seemed beyond cavil to constitute reckless imprudence

on the part of the surgeon, this conclusion is still best arrived at not through the educated surmises nor

conjectures of laymen, including judges, but by the unquestionable knowledge of expert witnesses.For

whether a physician or surgeon has exercised the requisite degree of skill and care in the treatment of

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/122445.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/122445.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/122445.htm#_edn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/122445.htm#_edn22

8/11/2019 Torts July 22

8/11

his patient is, in the generality of cases, a matter of expert opinion. The deference of courts to the

expert opinion of qualified physicians stems from its realization that the latter possess unusual technical

skills which laymen in most instances are incapable of intelligently evaluating.[31]

Expert testimony

should have been offered to prove that the circumstances cited by the courts below are constitutive of

conduct falling below the standard of care employed by other physicians in good standing when

performing the same operation. It must be remembered that when the qualifications of a physician are

admitted, as in the instant case, there is an inevitable presumption that in proper cases he takes the

necessary precaution and employs the best of his knowledge and skill in attending to his clients, unless

the contrary is sufficiently established.[32]This presumption is rebuttable by expert opinion which is so

sadly lacking in the case at bench.

In litigations involving medical negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing appellant's

negligence and for a reasonable conclusion of negligence, there must be proof of breach of duty on the

part of the surgeon as well as a casual connection of such breach and the resulting death of his patient.

And as testified to by the expert witnesses, Dr. Bu C. Castro said that hemorrhage due to DIC

"cannot be prevented, it will happen to anyone, anytime."

This court has no recourse but to rely on the expert testimonies rendered by both prosecution anddefense witnesses that substantiate rather than contradict petitioner's allegation that the cause of

Lydia's death was DIC which, as attested to by an expert witness, cannot be attributed to the petitioner's

fault or negligence. The probability that Lydia's death was caused by DIC was unrebutted during trial and

has engendered in the mind of this Court a reasonable doubt as to the petitioner's guilt. Thus, her

acquittal of the crime. While we condole with the family of Lydia Umali, our hands are bound by the

dictates of justice and fair dealing which hold inviolable the right of an accused to be presumed innocent

until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, this Court finds the petitioner civilly liable

for the death of Lydia Umali, for while a conviction of a crime requires proof beyond reasonable doubt,

only a preponderance of evidence is required to establish civil liability.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/122445.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/122445.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/122445.htm#_edn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/122445.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/122445.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/122445.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/122445.htm#_edn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/nov1997/122445.htm#_edn31

8/11/2019 Torts July 22

9/11

Captain of the Ship Doctrine RAMOS V CA

6/17/85 afternoon: Erlinda Ramos, 47-year old robust woman underwent an operation to have her gall

bladder removed after being tested that she was fit for "cholecystectomy" operation performed by Dr.

Orlino Hozaka. Dr. Hosaka charged a fee including the anesthesiologist's fee, to be paid after the

operation. He assured the husband Rogelio that he will get a good anesthesiologist (Dra. Gutierrez)

Present was Herminda Cruz, her sister -in-law who was the Dean of Nursing at the Capitol Medical

Instead of 9:30 am, Dr. Hosaka arrived at about 12:15 P.M.

Herminda noticing the failure of Dra. Gutierrez to intubate, saw the Erlinda becoming bluish and Dr.

Hosaka called for another anesthesiologist Dr. Calderon.

She went out of the operating room to tell Rogelio that something is wrong.

When she went back she saw Erlinda in a trendelenburg position and at 3pm she was taken to the ICU

where she stayed for a month due to bronchospasm. Expense incurred was P93K. She was on coma.

She suffered brain damage as a result of the absence of oxygen in her brain for four to five minutes.

Spouses Ramos and their minors filed against Dr. Hosaka and Dra. Perfecta Gutierrez RTC: favored the Ramos' awarding P8,000 as actual monthly expenses totalling to P632K, P100K atty.

fees, P800K moral damages, P200K exemplary damages and cost of suit

CA: reversed ordering the Ramos' to pay their unpaid bills of P93,542.25 plus interest

ISSUE:W/N the Ramos' are entitled to damages

HELD:YES. solidarily against respondents: actual, moral, temperate, exemplary, attys fees, costs of suit.

The application of res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence cases presents a question of law since it is a

judicial function to determine whether a certain set of circumstances does permit a given inference.

Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical testimony is

dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence- applicable in this case

Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can have no application in a suit against a physician or surgeon which

involves the merits of a diagnosis or of a scientific treatment

As borne by the records, respondent Dra. Gutierrez failed to properly intubate the patient according to

witness Herminda. With her clinical background as a nurse, the Court is satisfied with her testimony

Generally, to qualify as an expert witness, one must have acquired special knowledge of the subject

about which he is to testify, either by the study of recognized authorities or by practical experience.

As the so-called captain of the ship,it is Dr. Hosakas responsibility to see that those under him

perform their task in the proper manner. His negligence can be found in his failure to exercise the

proper authority in not determining if his anesthesiologist observed proper anesthesia protocols. In

fact, no evidence on record exists to show that respondent Dr. Hosaka verified if Dra. Gutierrez properly

intubated the patient. Furthermore, it does not escape us that respondent Dr. Hosaka had scheduled

another procedure in a different hospital at the same time as Erlindascholecystectomy, and was in fact

over three hours late for the latters operation. Thus, he had little or no time to confer with his

anesthesiologist regarding the anesthesia delivery. This indicates that he was remiss in duties, Thus, he

shares equal responsibility for the events which resulted in Erlindas condition.

8/11/2019 Torts July 22

10/11

SARMIENTO v CA

Tomasa Sarmientos friend, Dra. Virginia Lao, requested her to find someone tore-set a pair of diamond

earrings into two gold rings. Sarmiento sent Tita Payag with the earrings to Dingdings Jewelry Shop,

under employee Marilou which accepted the job order for P400. The shop was owned and managed by

spouses Luis and Rose Cabrido

Petitioner provided 12 grams of gold to be used in crafting the pair of ring settings. After 3 days, Payag

delivered to the jewelry shop one of the diamond earrings which was earlier appraised as worth .33

carat and almost perfect in cut and clarity.

Respondent Marilou Sun went on to dismount the diamond from original settings. Unsuccessful, she

asked their goldsmith, Zenon Santos, to do it. He removed the diamond by twisting the setting with

a pair of pliers, breaking the gem in the process.

Petitioner required the respondents to replace the diamond with the same size and quality. When they

refused, the petitioner was forced to buy a replacement in the amount of P30,000. Rose Cabrido,

manager, denied having any transaction with Payag whom she met only after the latter came to seek

compensation for the broken piece of jewelry.

Marilou, on the other hand, admitted knowing Payag to avail their services and recalled that when

Santos broke the jewelry, Payag turned to her for reimbursement, thinking she was the owner.

Santos denied being an employee of the Jewelry shop.

MTCC of Tagbiliran favored Petitioner Sarmiento. On appeal, Respondents conceded to obligation of

crafting gold rings, but but denied their obligation to dismount the diamonds from the original setting.

The RTC ruled in favor of the respondent Cabrido. CA affirmed the judgment of the RTC.

ISSUES 1. WON dismounting of the diamond from its original setting was part of theobligation2. WON

respondents are liable for damages3. WON respondents are liable for moral damages

1. YES - Their contemporaneous & subsequent acts reveal the obligation assumed by the jewelry shopto reset the pair of earrings. Marilou expressed no reservation regarding the dismounting of the

diamonds. She could have instructed Payag to have the diamonds dismounted first, but instead, she

readily accepted the job order and charged P400. After failing to do the same, she delegated it to the

goldsmith. Having acted the way she did, she cannot deny that the dismounting was part of the shops

obligation to reset the pair of earrings.

2. YES 1170 Santos acted negligently in dismounting the diamond from its original setting. Instead of

using a miniature wire, which is the practice of the trade, he used a pair of pliers. Marilou examined the

diamond before dismounting and found the same to be in order. The subsequent breakage could only

have been caused by Santos negligence in using the wrong equipment. Res ipsa loquitur.Facts show

that Marilou, who has transacted with Payag on at least 10 occasions, and Santos, are employed at

the jewelry shop. The jewelry shop failed to perform its obligation with the ordinary diligence required

by the circumstances.

3. YES Santos was a goldsmith for more than 40 years. He should have known that using a pair of pliers

would have entailed unnecessary risk of breakage. The gross negligence of their employee makes

respondents liable for moral damages

8/11/2019 Torts July 22

11/11

MAKATI SHANG-RILA v HARPER

November 1999, Christian Harper came to Manila on a business trip as the Business Development

Manager for Asia of ALSTOM Power Norway, an engineering firm with worldwide operations.

He checked in at the Shangri-La Hotel. He was due to check out on November 6, 1999. In the early

morning of that date, however, he was murdered inside his hotel room by still unidentified malefactors. It appears that at around 11am of 11/6/99, a Caucasian male entered the Alexis Jewelry Store in

Glorietta and expressed interest in purchasing a Cartier lady's watch valued at P320K with the use of two

Mastercard credit cards and an AMEX credit card issued in the name of Harper. But the customer's

difficulty in answering the queries phoned in by a credit card representative sufficiently aroused the

suspicion of saleslady Anna Liza Lumba (Lumba), who asked for the customer's passport upon suggestion

of the credit card representative to put the credit cards on hold. Probably sensing trouble for himself,

the customer hurriedly left the store, and left the three credit cards and the passport behind.

In the meanwhile, Harper's family in Norway must have called him at his hotel room to inform him

about the attempt to use his American Express card. Not getting any response from the room, his family

requested Raymond Alarcon, the Duty Manager of the Shangri-La Hotel, to check on Harper's room.

Alarcon and security personnel went to Room 1428, and were shocked to discover Harper's lifeless body

Respondents commenced suit in RTC to recover various damages alleging: The murderer succeeded to

trespass into the area of the hotel's private rooms area and into the room of the said deceased on

account of the hotel's gross negligence in providing the most basic security system of its guests. Owing

to the acts or omissions of its employees was the immediate cause of the tragic death of said deceased.

RTC ruled in favor of the respondents. CA affirmed.

Petitioner argues: resps. failed to prove its negligence; Harper's own negligence in allowing the killers

into his room was the proximate cause; & that hotels are not insurers of the safety of their guests.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner had committed negligence HELD: YES

Makati Shangri-La Hotel, is a 5 star hotel. The "reasonable care" that it must exercise for the safety and

comfort of its guests should be commensurate w/the grade and quality of the accommodation it offers.

When one registers (as) a hotel guest, he makes the establishment the guardian of his life&property

during his stay. It is thus management SOP to screen visitors who call on their guests at their rooms.

Harpers murdercouldve been avoided had the security guards dutifully observed standard procedure.

It could be gleaned from findings of the trial court that its conclusion of negligence on the part of

defendant-appellant is grounded mainly on the latter's inadequate hotel security, more particularly on

the failure to deploy sufficient security personnel or roving guards at the time the ghastly incident

happened. A review of the testimony of Col. De Guzman reveals that on direct examination he testified that at the

time he assumed his position as Chief Security Officer of defendant-appellant, there was only 1 guard

per 3-4 floors, whereas it should be 1:1

Unfortunately, the record failed to show that at the time of the death of Christian Harper, it was

exercising reasonable care to protect its guests from harm and danger by providing sufficient security

commensurate to a 5star hotel. SC: hotels, like common carriers, is imbued with public interest. It is

bound to provide not only lodging for hotel guests but also security to their persons and belongings