BATIQUIN V CA (Villegas)

258 SCRA 334 DAVIDE; July 5, 1996

NATURE:
Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals
FACTS
- Mrs. Villegas submitted to Dr. Batiquin for prenatal care as the latter's private patient sometime
before September 21,1988. In the morning of September 21, 1988 Dr. Batiquin, along with other
physicians and nurses, performed a caesarean operation on Mrs. Villegas and successfully
delivered the latter’s baby. After leaving the hospital, Mrs. Villegas began to suffer abdominal
pains and complained of being feverish. She also gradually lost her appetite, so she consulted Dr.
Batiquin at the latter's polyclinic who prescribed for her certain medicines. However, the pains
still kept recurring. She then consulted Dr.Ma. Salud Kho. After examining her, Dr Kho
suggested that Mrs.Villegas submit to another surgery.- When Dr. Kho opened the abdomen of
Mrs. Villegas she found whitish-yellow discharge inside, an ovarian cyst on each of the left and
right ovaries which gave out pus, dirt and pus behind the uterus, and a piece of rubber material
on the right side of the uterus, embedded on the ovarian cyst. The piece of rubber appeared to be
a part of a rubber glove. This was the cause of all of the infection of the ovaries and consequently
of all the discomfort suffered by Mrs. Villegas. The piece of rubber allegedly found was not
presented in court, and Dr. Kho testified that she sent it to a pathologist in Cebu City for
examination. Aside from Dr. Kho's testimony, the evidence which mentioned the piece of rubber
are a Medical Certificate, a Progress Record, an Anaesthesia Record, a Nurse's Record, and a
Physician's Discharge Summary. The trial court, however, regarded these documentary evidence
as mere hearsay, "there being no showing that the person or persons who prepared them are
deceased or unable to testify on the facts therein stated- There was also doubts as to the
whereabouts of the piece of rubber, as 2 versions arose from Dr. Kho’s testimony: 1) that it was
sent to the Pathologist in Cebu as testified to in Court by Dr. Kho and (2) that Dr. Kho threw it
away as told by her to Defendant. The failure of the Plaintiffs to reconcile these two different
versions served only to weaken their claim against Defendant Batiquin. The trial court ruled in
favor of the defendants. The CA reversed the decision.

ISSUES

Procedural:
WON the court can review questions of fact

Substantive:
WON Dr. Batiquin is liable

HELD
Procedural:
YES

- While the rule is that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on
certiorari , there are exceptions, among which are when the factual findings of the trial court and
the appellate court conflict, when the appealed decision is clearly contradicted by the evidence
on record, or when the appellate court misapprehended the facts
Substantive
- The focal point of the appeal is Dr. Kho’s testimony. There were inconsistencies within her own
testimony, which led to the different decision of the RTC and CA. The CA was correct in saying
that the trial court erred when it isolated the disputed portion of Dr. Kho’s testimony and did not
consider it with other portions of Dr. Kho’s testimony. Also, the phrase relied upon by the trial
court does not negate the fact that Dr. Kho saw a piece of rubber in private respondent Villegas'
abdomen, and that she sent it to a laboratory and then to Cebu City for examination by a
pathologist. Furthermore, Dr. Kho's knowledge of the piece of rubber could not be based on
other than first hand knowledge for, as she asserted before the trial court.