RAMOS vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
GR No. 124354 / December 29, 1999 / J. Kapunan
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the CA
Topic: Res Ipsa Loquitor

FACTS
Ramos, a 47yo robust woman, sought professional advice regarding her discomfort due to pains allegedly
caused by the presence of a stone in her gall bladder.
She underwent a series of examinations which indicated she was fit for surgery.
Dr Hosaka decided that Ramos should undergo a cholecystectomy1 operation after examining the
findings from Capitol Medical Center, and Ramos agreed on the date of the operation, hospital, FEU
Hospital, DLSMC
Something went wrong when they were trying to intubate the patient. (Case quoted them in tagalog
mahirap daw ipasok [that was she said :>] and the nailbed of the patient turned bluish.
Patient was taken to the ICU
When asked by the hospital to explain, the doctors said that the patient had bronchospasm.
Patient fell into a coma because she suffered brain damage as a result of the absence of oxygen in her
brain for 4-5min. Patient stayed at the ICU for a month and was only released after 4 months.
After being discharged, patient was diagnosed to be suffering from diffuse cerebral parenchymal
damage and will still need constant medical attention
Petitioners filed a civil case for damages against the private respondents alleging negligence in the
management and care of the patient.
Repondents defense: The patient suffered from an allergic reaction to the anesthetic agent, Pentothal.
RTC ruled that private respondents are guilty of negligence in the performance of their duty to the patient;
they omitted to exercise reasonable care in not only intubating the patient but also in not repeating the
administration of atropine without due regard to the fact that the patient was inside the operating room
for almost 3 hours (Dr Hosaka was late for 3 hours).
o Hosaka was responsible for the acts of the Anesthesiologist whom he had chosen and for arriving
3 hours late.
o The hospital was also held liable for negligence of the doctors in their practice of medicine in the
operating room and for failing to cancel the scheduled operation after Dr Hosaka inexcusable
failed to arrive on time.
CA reversed the findings of the Trial Court

ISSUE : Whether or not the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is appropriate in the case at bar
(YES).

DISPOSITIVE : the decision and resolution of the appellate court appealed from are hereby
modified so as to award in favor of petitioners, and solidarily against private respondents

RATIO
Res ipsa loquitur is a Latin phrase which literally means the thing or the transaction speaks for itself.
The phrase res ipsa loquitur is a maxim for the rule that the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken
with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or
make out a plaintiffs prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an
explanation.
Where the thing which caused the injury complained of is shown to be under the management of the
defendant or his servants and the accident is such as in ordinary course of things does not happen if
those who have its management or control use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the
absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from or was caused by the defendants
want of care.
When the 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.

1 Cholecystectomy is the surgical excision of the gall bladder