MANILA DOCTORS HOSPITAL, Petitioner, v.

SO UN CHUA and
VICKY TY, Respondents.
[G.R. NO. 150355 : July 31, 2006]

FACTS:

Respondents So Un Chua and Vicky Ty, mother and daughter,

filed an action for damages against petitioner Manila Doctors Hospital
for allegedly committing unwarranted actuations and undue pressure
towards respondent Chua when she was admitted as a patient of the
petitioner hospital. The respondents contend that such acts of undue
pressure to pay the balance of their bills aggravated the condition of
the patient.

It was alleged that the petitioner hospital, among others, cut off
of the telephone line in respondent Chua’s room, removed the air-
conditioning unit, television set, and refrigerator, and refused to
render medical attendance and to change the hospital gown and bed
sheets.

The petitioner hospital denied the material allegations and

contends that a week after respondent Chua had been admitted, the
attending physician had already given instructions for her to be
discharged but respondents insisted that Chua remain in confinement
and that respondent Vicky Ty reneged on her commitment to pay the
balance of their hospital bills. Further, it avers that there was no
undue pressure imposed on respondent Chua the truth of the matter
being that the balance of their bills were relayed not to Chua herself
but to her relatives and that respondent Ty deliberately evaded the
Credit staff of the hospitals and even issued thereto checks that were
later dishonored. Lastly, the appliances removed from respondent
patient’s room were non-essential; the removal of which would not be
detrimental to her medical condition.

The lower courts held that the actuations by the petitioner

hospital constituted abuse of rights of the patient. Hence it rendered a
decision in favor of the respondents and ordered the award of moral
and exemplary damages as well as litigation costs.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in finding the actuations of the
administration of Manila Doctors Hospital to be in bad faith,
oppressive and unnecessary as to make it liable to
respondents for damages and attorney's fees -No

RULING:
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and reversed or set
aside the decision of the CA and the RTC. The Court ordered
respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the petitioner hospital.
 Upon review of the court of the factual findings of the lower
courts, it ruled that evidence in the record overwhelmingly
demonstrated that respondent Chua had been adequately attended
to, and this Court cannot understand why the courts a quo had
declared that there was an "utter lack of medical attendance," or that
her health suffered during the period after the removal of the facilities.
The Court finds that the facilities in question are non-essential for the
care of respondent Chua and, hence, they may be lessened or
removed by the petitioner for the sake of economic necessity and
survival. Giving credence to the declarations of the witnesses (Dr. Sy
who was the attending physician of Chua and Sister Mary Philip
Galeno, SPC, the Administrator of the hospital) who the Court
considered as expert testimony, are reliable and remain considerably
trustworthy to controvert respondents' assertions as well as to
reverse the conclusions of fact and law of the CA and the RTC that
respondent Chua suffered the physical and emotional anguish so
claimed, and so, for these reasons, the Court holds that the petitioner
inflicted no actionable wrong.

Moreover, the underlying basis for the award of tort damages is

the premise that an individual was injured in contemplation of law.
Thus, there must first be the breach of some duty and the imposition
of liability for that breach before damages may be awarded; it is not
sufficient to state that there should be tort liability merely because the
plaintiff suffered some pain and suffering. Dr. Sy testified that he
consented to the removal of the said facilities as it would not by itself
be detrimental to the health of his patient, respondent Chua.

NOTES:

 Given the degree of diligence a hospital duly exerted, not every

suppression of the things that one has grown accustomed to
enjoy amounts to an actionable wrong, nor does every physical
or emotional discomfort amount to the kind of anguish that
warrants the award of moral damages under the general
principles of tort.

 If the patient cannot pay the hospital or physician's bill, the law
provides a remedy for them to pursue, that is, by filing the
necessary suit in court for the recovery of such fee or bill.108 If
the patient is prevented from leaving the hospital for his inability
to pay the bill, any person who can act on his behalf can apply
in court for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus.