CAYAO-LASAM VS RAMOLETE

GR NO 159132 December 18, 2008

RULING: The omission in not returning for a follow-up evaluation

played a substantial part in bringing about Editha’s own injury.
Had Editha returned, petitioner could have conducted the proper
medical tests and procedure necessary to determine Editha’s
health condition and applied the corresponding treatment which
could have prevented the rupture of Editha’s uterus. The D&C
procedure having been conducted in accordance with the
standard medical practice, it is clear that Editha’s omission was
the proximate cause of her own injury and not merely a
contributory negligence on her part.

Based on the evidence presented in the present case under

review, in which no negligence can be attributed to the petitioner,
the immediate cause of the accident resulting in Editha’s injury
was her own omission when she did not return for a follow-up
check up, in defiance of petitioners orders. The immediate cause
of Editha’s injury was her own act; thus, she cannot recover
damages from the injury.