Rico Rommel Atienza vs. Board of Medicine and Editha Sioson, G.R. No. 177407, February 9.

2011
Facts:
Private respondent went to Rizal Medical Center to submit for a check up due to her lumbar pains. Her diagnostic laboratory
test results revealed that her right kidney was normal while her left kidney was non-functioning and non-visualizing. Hence, she
underwent kidney operation under the care of the four physicians namely: Dr. Judd dela Vega, Dr. Pedro Lantin III, Dr. Gerardo
Antonio and petitioner Dr. Rico Rommel Atienza.
The said physicians removed her fully functioning right kidney instead of the left non-functioning and non-visualizing
kidney. Due to their gross negligence and incompetence, private respondent filed a complaint against the four doctors before the Board
of Medicine. Private respondent therein offered four certified photocopies as her documentary evidence to prove that her kidneys
were both in their proper anatomical locations at the time that she was operated.
The Board of Medicine admitted the formal offer despite the objection of herein petitioner. Petitioner contends that the
documentary evidence offered were inadmissible as it were incompetent. Further, he alleged that the same documents were not
properly identified and authenticated, violate the best evidence rule and his substantive rights, and are completely hearsay.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Issues:
Whether the exhibits are inadmissible evidence on the ground that it violates the best evidence rule.
Whether the exhibits are inadmissible evidence on the ground that they have not been properly identified and authenticated.
Whether the exhibits are inadmissible evidence on the ground that it is completely hearsay.
Whether the admission of the documents violated the substantive rights of the petitioner.
Ruling:

1.

No. The subject of the inquiry in this case is whether the doctors are liable for gross negligence in removing the right functioning
kidney of Editha instead of the left non-functioning kidney, not the proper anatomical locations of Edithas kidneys. The proper
anatomical locations of Edithas kidneys at the time of her operation at the RMC may be established not only through the exhibits
offered in evidence.
In fact, the introduction of secondary evidence is allowed. Section 3, Rule 130 provides that when the subject of the inquiry is the
contents of the document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except when the original has been
lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court without bad faith on the offeror. Since the original documents cannot be produced
based on the testimony of Dr. Aquino BOM properly admitted Edithas formal offer of evidence, and thereafter, the BOM shall
determine the probative value thereof when it decides the case.

2.

No, the documentary evidence were properly identified and authenticated. The records show that the exhibits offered by private
respondent were the same evidence attached in Doctor Lantin's counter-affidavit filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor in
answer to the criminal complaint of the respondent. To lay the predicate for her case, private respondent offered the exhibits in
evidence to prove that her kidneys were both in their proper anatomical locations at the time of her operation.

3.

No, these exhibits do not constitute hearsay evidence. The anatomical positions whether left or right, of Edithas kidneys, and the
removal of one or both, may still be established through a belated ultrasound or x-ray of her abdominal area.

4.

No, petitioners substantive rights were not violated when the documentary evidence were admitted. The fact sought to be proved by
the exhibits that the two kidneys of Editha were in their proper anatomical locations at the time she was operated on is presumed under
Section 3 of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court which provides that things have happened according to the ordinary course of nature and
the ordinary habits of life.
The fact sought to be established by the admission of the respondents exhibit need not be proved as it is covered by mandatory
judicial notice. Laws of nature involving the physical science, specifically biology include the structural make-up and composition of
living things such as human beings in which the court may take judicial notice.