CARLOS BORROMEO v FAMILY CARE HOSPITAL

GR No. 191018
JAN. 25, 2016

BRION, J.

FACTS:
After having experienced acute pain at the lower stomach and a fever for 2 days,
Carlo Borromeo’s wife was brought to the family care hospital where she was admitted. Dr.
Inso conducted the surgery and confirmed that Lillian, Carlos’ wife, has an acute
appendicitis. The operation was successful. However, after 16 hours, Lillian was returned to
her room where she starts to become restless and dropped her blood pressure. Dr. Inso
ordered her to place in the ICU. Since it was a secondary hospital, it does not have an ICU. It
was arranged that she be transferred to another hospital with an ICU. Unfortunately, Lillian
died despite trying to resuscitate her.
In the autopsy report, it was seen that she died of hemorrhage caused by an opening
in the repair site of the lower stomach. Carlos filed a complaint against Family Care Hospital
due to the alleged negligence of Dr. Inso. The RTC ruled in favor of Carlos by virtue of the
principle of res ipsa loquitor. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the RTC
for the respondents presented such evidence that Lillian’s death was not due to Dr. Inso’s
negligence.

ISSUE:
Are Dr. Inso and the Family Care Hospital liable for damages due to negligence?

RULING:
The petitioner has failed to establish tenable proofs that the death of Lillian was due
to hemorrhage. The respondents presented their evidence by way of showing Dr. Ramos as
a witness. Dr. Ramos was an expert at pathology. In comparison with Dr. Reyes, Dr. Ramos is
more experienced in the field of pathology. Thus, Dr. Ramos stated that Lillian is suffering
from other causes aside from the failure in the repair site.
The basic legal principle that equally applies to both civil and criminal cases that
whoever alleges the fact has the burden of proof.