Garcia vs Salvador

Garcia, Jr. v. Salvador

Garcia, Jr. v. Salvador (2007) / Ynares-Santiago

Facts
Ranida Salvador started working as a trainee in LBHT. She underwent a medical exam @ CDC with
Garcia (medtech) conducting the HBs Ag test. Her result was REACTIVE. The company physician (Sto.
Domingo) told her she is suffering from HepaB, and based on the medical report SD submitted, LBHT
terminated her employment. Ranida told her father Ramon about her condition, then the latter suffered a
heart attack and was confined  at Bataan Doctors Hospital. Ranida took another HBs Ag test in BDH, and
the result was NON-REACTIVE. She told Dr. SD about it but the latter said the CDC test was more
reliable, so she took another test at CDC again, and the result this time was NON-REACTIVE. She took
the same test used in CDC @ BDH and the result was NON-REACTIVE (four tests!). She submitted the
results to the LBHT ExecOff who requested her to undergo under test (WTF!) - result is NEGATIVE (5th
test, haha), so LBHT rehired her.
     Ranida and Ramon filed a complaint for damages against medtech Garcia + pathologist Castro,
claiming that the erroneous interpretation led her to lose her job, suffer mental anxiety, while Ramon was
hospitalized + lost business opportunities. Garcia denied the allegations of gross negligence and
incompetence; explained "false positive." Castro said he did not examine Ranida, and that the results
bore only his stamped signature.
          RTC dismissed the Salvadors' complaint for failure to present sufficient evidence. CA reversed this
and ordered Garcia to pay moral damages (50k), exemplary damages (50k), and atty's fees (25k). Castro
was exonerated.

Issue and Holding

WON CA correctly found Garcia liable for damages. YES
1. WON a person is negligent is a question of fact -- petition for review on certiorari limited to
reviewing errors of law
1. Negligence - failure to observe for the protection of another's interest that degree of care,
precaution and vigilance which circ demand, whereby the other suffers injury
1. ALL ELEMENTS OF AN ACTIONABLE CONDUCT ARE PRESENT IN THIS
CASE
1. Duty
2. Breach
3. Injury
4. Proximate causation
2. Negligence is a violation of statutory duty -- so many laws were broken!
1. CDC is not administered, directed, supervised by licensed physician but by a
licensed medtech
1. Castro's infrequent visit barely qualifies as an admin supervision and
control
2. Garcia conducted HBs Ag test of Ranida without Castro's supervision
3. HBs Ag test result released to Ranida without Castro's authorization
3. Garcia's failure to comply with laws, rules promulgated for the protection of public safety
and interest is failure to observe the care which a reasonably prudent health care provider would observe
--> BREACH OF DUTY!
4. Injuries suffered by Ranida could have been avoided had proper safeguards been
followed
5. NCC 20 is the legal basis for award of damages to one who suffers whenever another
commits an act in violation of some legal provision
https://www.scribd.com/document/181160369/Garcia-vs-Salvador-digest-pdf