Atienza v.

Board of Medicine
G.R. No. 177407- February 9, 2011
J. Nachura

Topic: Definition of Evidence (Rule 128, Sec 1) (This case didn’t touch on this at all )
Doctrine: The rules on evidence are not strictly applied in administrative bodies. The safest policy is to
be liberal, not rejecting the evidence on doubtful/technical grounds, but admitting them unless they are
plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent. This is because rejection places them beyond consideration
of the court, if they later are found to be relevant or competent, on the other hand, if they are admitted but
later turn out to be irrelevant or incompetent, they can simply be ignored or discarded.

Petitioners: RICO ROMMEL ATIENZA

Respondents: BOARD OF MEDICINE and EDITHA SIOSON

Case Summary:
Editha Sioson had a non-functioning left kidney. When she was operated on by Atienza and other
doctors, it is alleged that they removed her functioning right kidney instead of the left. A complaint for
gross negligence was filed against the doctors. Editha offered as evidence certified photocopies of X-
Ray request forms prior to her operation which showed her kidneys were in the right place. Atienza
objected to the admission of such evidence saying that it is hearsay as there are mere photocopies not
properly identified and authenticated. The Board of Medicine chose to admit the evidence.

The SC held that the BOM did not err in admitted the evidence for several reasons. First, it stated that
the rules of evidence are not strictly applied to administrative bodies like the BOM. Rules on evidence
must be liberally applied. If the evidence admitted is later proven to be irrelevant, it can always be
ignored or disposed of. Second, the Court pointed out that the fact sought to be established (that
Editha’s kidneys were in the correct anatomical location pre-surgery) is already presumed under Sec 3,
Rule 131(y). The Court further stated that the best evidence rule is not applicable and that the evidence
presented is not hearsay, after all the location of the kidneys of Editha and the presence/absence of the
right kidney, can still be established by an ultrasound post-operation.

Facts:
 The case is a Rule 45 petition for certiorari
 4 Feb 1995: Editha Sioson went to Rizal Medical Center (RMC) for a check-up on her lumbar pains
 1999: She experienced the same problem and was referred to Dr. Pedro Lantin III of RMC who
ordered several diagnostic laboratory tests which revealed that her right kidney was normal but that
her left kidney was non-functioning and non-visualizing
 Sept 1999: she underwent kidney surgery
 18 Feb 2000: Romeo Sioson (hubby of Editha) filed a complaint for gross negligence and/or
incompetence before the Board of Medicine (BOM) against the doctors 1 who allegedly participated in
the kidney operation
o Gross negligence: what was removed was the functioning right kidney and not the left kidney 
 The complaint was heard by the BOM
 After Romeo presented his evidence, Editha filed her formal offer of documentary evidence. Attached
to the formal offer of documentary evidence are her Exhibits "A" to "D," which she offered for the
purpose of proving that her kidneys were both in their proper anatomical locations at the time she was
operated.

1
Dr. Judd dela Vega, Dr. Pedro Lantin, III, Dr. Gerardo Antonio Florendo and petitioner Rico Rommel Atienza
 These exhibits were certified photocopies of X-Ray request forms with handwritten entries
interpreting the results of the ultrasound examination. Exhibits A, B, and D were the same as/identical
to the certified photocopy of the document marked as Annexes to the Counter-Affidavits filed by some
of the doctors (except Dr Atienza)
 Dr Atienza filed his comments/objections to Editha’s formal offer. He alleged that they are
inadmissible because they are mere photocopies, not properly identified and authenticated, and
are intended to establish matters which are hearsay. He also argued that the exhibits are
incompetent to prove the purpose for which they are offered.
 BOM: Admitted the formal offer of evidence of Editha, the comment/objections of Atienza and the
other doctors
 Atienza filed MR reiterating his objection.
 BOM: Denied MR, it should first admit the evidence being offered so that it can determine its
probative value when it decides the case. BOM will determine if it is relevant or not if it admits it and
takes a look at it
 Atienza filed pet for certiorari with CA but this was denied. Raised case to the SC

Issues + Held:
1. W/N the CA erred in upholding the admission of incompetent and inadmissible evidence – No
 Atienza argues that the exhibits formally offered in evidence by Editha are inadmissible because they:
o Violate the best evidence rules
o Have not been properly identified and authenticated
o Are completely hearsay
o And are incompetent to prove their purpose
 First the SC stressed the rules on evidence are not strictly applied in administrative bodies. The safest
policy is to be liberal, not rejecting the evidence on doubtful/technical grounds, but admitting them
unless they are plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent. This is because rejection places them
beyond consideration of the court, if they later are found to be relevant or competent, on the other
hand, if they are admitted but later turn out to be irrelevant or incompetent, they can simply be ignored
or discarded.
 There is a distinction between the admissibility of evidence and the probative weight to be accorded
the evidence. Admissibility refers to whether or not the circumstance/evidence is to be considered at
all. Probative value refers to whether or not it proves the issue (PNOC Shipping v CA)
 Atienza argues that the admission of Editha’s exhibits violated his substantive rights leading to the loss
of his medical license relying on Sec 20, Art I of the Professional Regulation Commission Rules 2
 The Court held that the admission of the exhibits did not prejudice his substantive rights because the
fact sought to be proved was just that Editha’s 2 kidneys were in their proper anatomical locations at
the time she was operated on, is presumed under Sec 3, Rule 131(y) 3
 The exhibits are certified photocopies of X-ray Request Forms filed in connection with Editha's
medical case. The documents contain handwritten entries interpreting the results of the examination.
These exhibits were actually attached as annexes to Dr. Pedro Lantin III's counter affidavit filed with

2
Section 20. Administrative investigation shall be conducted in accordance with these Rules. The Rules of Court
shall only apply in these proceedings by analogy or on a suppletory character and whenever practicable and
convenient. Technical errors in the admission of evidence which do not prejudice the substantive rights of either
party shall not vitiate the proceedings.

3
Sec. 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence: (y) That things have happened according to the ordinary course of
nature and the ordinary habits of life.
 the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City, which was investigating the criminal complaint for
negligence filed by Editha against the doctors of Rizal Medical Center (RMC) who handled her
surgical procedure.
 Editha offered the exhibits in evidence to prove that her "kidneys were both in their proper anatomical
locations at the time" of her operation. The fact sought to be established by the admission of Editha's
exhibits, that her "kidneys were both in their proper anatomical locations at the time" of her operation,
need not be proved as it is covered by mandatory judicial notice.
 The rules of evidence are merely the means for ascertaining the truth respecting a matter of fact. They
provide for some facts which are established and need not be proved, such as those covered by judicial
notice, both mandatory and discretionary.
 Laws of nature involving the physical sciences, specifically biology, include the structural make-up
and composition of living things such as human beings. In this case, the Court may take judicial notice
that Editha's kidneys before, and at the time of, her operation, as with most human beings, were in
their proper anatomical locations.
 Atienza further argues that the Best Evidence Rule 4 was not complied with
 SC: the best evidence rule is inapplicable. The subject of inquiry is w/n the doctors are liable for gross
negligence in removing the right functioning kidney of Editha not the proper anatomical locations of
her kidneys at the time of her operation.
 Lastly, the SC said that the exhibits are not hearsay evidence of the anatomical locations of Editha’s
kidneys. The anatomical positions whether left or right and their removal may still be established
through a belated ultrasound. The introduction of secondary evidence such as copies of the exhibits, is
allowed. A witness testified that RMC’s records office no longer had the originals as they were
transferred to another building. Since the originals cannot be produced, the BOM properly admitted
Editha's formal offer of evidence and, thereafter, the BOM shall determine the probative value thereof
when it decides the case

Ruling: Petition DENIED.

Dissent – (J. xxx): NONE

4
Section 3 of Rule 130 provides:
1. Best Evidence Rule
Sec. 3. Original document must be produced; exceptions. — When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a
document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, except in the following cases:
(a) When the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of
the offeror;
(b) When the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence is offered, and
the latter fails to produce it after reasonable notice;
(c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot be examined in court
without great loss of time and the fact sought to be established from them is only the general result of the whole;
and
(d) When the original is a public record in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office.