Professional Services, Inc. vs.

Natividad and Enrique Agana

G.R. No. 126297. January 31, 2007.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

FACTS:
Respondent Natividad Agana was rushed to the Medical City General
Hospital and operated on by Dr. Miguel Ampil for her “cancer of the sigmoid”. After
seeing that it had spread to her left ovary, Dr. Juan Fuentes then performed a
hysterectomy on her. Thereafter, Dr. Ampil took over and completed the operation.
However, the operation appeared to be flawed with two pieces of gauze left inside
Natividad. Later, she complained of excruciating pain in her anal region but Dr.
Ampil told her that it was the natural consequence of the procedure. Natividad then
flew to the United States to seek further treatment and returned when she was cancer
free. Upon her return, she found a piece of gauze from her vagina. Dr. Ampil then
extracted it by hand and assured her that the pain would vanish. However, it did not.
She had to undergo another procedure to extract the remaining piece of gauze left in
her vagina. Thereafter, she filed a complaint for damages with the RTC against
Professional Services, Inc., owner of the Medical City Hospital, Dr. Ampil, and Dr.
Fuentes for negligence and malpractice. Consequently, Agana filed an
administrative complaint against the two doctor with the Professional Regulation
Commission. The RTC ruled in favor of the Aganas. However, the PRC Board of
Medicine, acquitted Dr. Fuentes but held Dr. Ampil and the PSI liable.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Dr. Ampil should be held liable for Natividad Agana’s injury?
YES.

HELD:
Dr. Ampil should be held liable for Natividad’s injury. This is a clear case of
medical malpractice or medical negligence. To prove this, it must only be proven
that a healthcare provider either failed to do something a reasonably prudent health
care provider would have done, or that he did something that a reasonably prudent
provider would not have done; and that failure or action caused injury to the patient.
Dr. Ampil, being the lead surgeon, had the duty to remove all foreign objects before
closure of the incision. Moreover, his deliberate concealment of the missing gauzes
further aggravated Natividad’s injury.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
 WHEREFORE, we DENY all the petitions and AFFIRM the challenged
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 42062 and CA-G.R. SP No.
32198.