Chapter 9

LBC air vs CA
Tano Jr is negligent because despite the dust in the road, he
turned left. No last clear chance can be invoked since the
accident happened instantaneously
Stronghold vs CA
Ceasar Rivera’s death is compensable, the death certificate
stating he died of heart attack does not negate compensability
because the real and proximate cause of death is the accident
he occurred during work.
People vs Umawid
Umawid appeared and suddenly attack persons with a bolo
causing deaths and injuries. On trial Umawid set up the defense
of insanity but refused to take the stand. He, however,
presented the testimony of two doctors that in the opinion the
he is insane.
Ruling: Umawid cannot be exempted due to insanity. The
defense of insanity is an admission to have committed the
crime, but he or she should not be guilty because of the
absence of sound mind. The law presumes sanity, and those
who plead otherwise bears the burden of proving it with clear
and convincing evidence. The evidence must relate to the time
immediately before or during the commission of the crimes
charge. It must be shown that the accused had no full and clear
understanding of the nature and consequences of his or her
own acts. In the present case, the sole reliance on the findings
of the doctors does not prove insanity, as the doctor admitted
that it did not include Umawid’s mental disposition
immediately before or during the commission of the crime.
leah alisana vs sister mary
No wrongful administration of medicine since the doctor
folllowed standard medical procedure for typhoid fever.

Judge Priscialla Miharez vs Judge Villaluz

Respodent Onofre Villaluz was suspended in the practice of law
for violation of Rule 1.01 of the CPR for enegaging in an
unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful conduct by
contracting to marriages

People vs Rodolfo Operana Jr

Husband killed wife through hanging and was convicted.
prosecution said it was strangulation
defense said it was suicide
Evidence show that the victim was strangled to death and the
defense of suicide falls when bruises and aberations where
found in the body signifying struggle.

People vs Ivler
Reason and precendent both coincide that once convicted or
acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accussed
may not be prosecuted again for the same act. For the essence
of the quasi offense of criminal negligence under the RPC lies in
the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if
intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law
penalizes the negligent act or careless act, not the result
thereof.
Nogales vs CMC
Facts: Corazon Nogales was rushed to CMC for complication of
her pregnancy. During the operation Dr Estrada and Dr. Villaflor
extracted the baby which allegedly torn a piece of cervical
tissue. This cause profuse vaginal bleeding which causes
hemorrage, post-partum. The husband filed CMC, the RTC and
CA rendered judgment finding Dr. Estada solely and personally
liable for the negligence following the borrowed servant
doctrine.
Ruling: The CMC is liabile. In general a hospital is not liable for
the negligence of an independent contractor-physician. The
exception is if the physician is the ostensible agent of the
hospital under the doctrine of apparent authority. It must be
shown that 1) the hospital or its agent acted in a manger that
would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the individual
who was alledge to be negligent was an employee or agent of
the hospital 2) the acts of the agent create the appearance of
an authority and 3) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon the
conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistent with ordinary
care and prudence.
Atienza vs Board of Medicine
Facts: Due to lumbar pains, Editha santos went to Rizal Medical
Center for checkup. She was referred to Dr. Lantin III who
ordered diagnostic test, the tests revealed that her right kidney
is normal. However, her left kidney is non-functioning and non-
visualizing. She underwent kidney operations. Later, her
husband filed a complaint for gross negligence and
incompetence against the doctors who allegedly participated in
the fateful kidney operation. The negligence consist of the
removal of Editha’s fully functional right kidney instead of the
left non-functioning and non-visualizing kidney. Romeo
presented his evidence and field her formal documentary
evidence, after the formal offer of evidence, Atienza filed his
objections alleging that the evidence is inadmissible because
they are mere photocopies and are intended to establish
matters which are hearsay.
Ruling: it is a well settled rule that the rules of evidence are not
strictly applied in proceedings before administrative bodies
such as the BOM. It is the safest policy to be liberal, not
rejecting them on doubtful or technical grounds, but admitting
them unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent, for
the reason that their rejection places them beyond the
consideration of the court, if they are thereafter found relevant
or competent; on the other hand, their admission, if they turn
out later to be irrelevant or incompetent, can easily be
remedied by completely discarding them or ignoring them. In
the case, the photocopies are certified photocopies of
handwritten entries interpreting the results of the examination,
the facts sought to be established by the exhibits are that her
kidneys were both in their proper anatomical locations at the
time of her operation. Unquestionably, the rules of evidence
are merely the means of ascertaining the truth respecting a
matter of fact. Thus, they likewise provide for some facts which
are established and need not to 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, we 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.
Ramos vs CA
Facts: Erlinda Ramos was normal except for her experiencing
occasional pain due to the presence of stone in her gall baldder.
She was advised to undergo an operation for its removal.
Erlinda together with her husband met with Dr. Hosaka who
advised she should undergo cholecystectomy and assured she
will get a good anaesthesiologist. On the day of the operation
Dr. Perfecta Gutierrez was to administer the anaesthesia, while
intubating the patient Erlinda’s nailbeds discoloured and she
was placed in a trendelenburg position which indicates a
decrease of blood supply in the braid. Erlinda was taken to the
ICU and became comatose.
Issue: whether the surgeon, anaesthesiologist and the hospital
should be liable for the condition of erlinda.
Ruling: Yes, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is a rule that
the fact of the occurrence of an injury, taken with the
surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a
presumption of negligence, or make out a platiff’s prima facie
case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with
an explanation. It is grounded in the superior logic of ordinary
human experience and on the basis of such experience or
common knowledge, negligence may be deduced from the
mere occurrence of the accident itself. However, before resort
to the doctrine may be allowed, the following requisites must
be satisfactorily shown:
1. Accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the
absence of someone’s negligence (not ordinary
occurrence)
2. It is caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive
control of the defendant or defendants (defendant’s
control)
3. The possibility of contributing conduct which would make
the plaintiff responsible is eliminated (contributing
conduct)
Medical malpractice cases do not escape the application of this
doctrine. Thus, applied when the circumstance attendant upon
the harm are themselves of such a character as to justify an
inference of negligence as the cause of that harm. Although
generally, expert medical testimony is relied upon in
malpractice suits to prove that a physician has done a
negligenct act or that he has deviated from the standard of
medical procedure, when the doctrine is availed the need for
expert medical testimony is dispense with because the injury
itself provides the proof of negligence. In the present case, we
find that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is appropriate, Erlinda
submitted herself for cholecystectomy and expected a routine
general surgery to be performed on her gall bladder. On that
fateful day she delivered her person over to the case, custody
and control of the respondents who exercised complete and
exclusive control over her. At the time of submission, Erlinda
was neurologically sound and, except for a few minor
discomforts was likewise physically fit in mind and body.
However, during the administration of anesthesia and prior to
the performance of cholecystectomy she suffered irreparable
damage to her brain. Thus without undergoing surgery, she
went out of the operating room already decebrate and totally
incapacitate
Alano vs Magud-Logmao
Facts: A certain 18 year old Arnelito Logmao was brought to
East Avenue Medical Center for treatment, he was brought by
strangers who happened to saw him fall in the pavement.
Arnelito was treated but was later on declared brain dead.
Arnelito was found to be a suitable donor of organs,
consequently Dr. Alano instructed the hospital to identify and
exhaust all efforts to search family members of Arnelito. When
the search turned to be futile Dr. Alano ordered the removal of
donated organs following the requirements of the law. Later a
family member of Arnelito surfaced an sued Dr. Alano
Issue: whether or not the organ removal is valid
Ruling: Yes, the internal organs of the deceased were removed
only after he had been declared brain dead, the emotional pain
suffered by respondent due to the death of her son cannot be
in any way be attributed to petitioner. Neither can the court
find evidence nor second to show that respondent’s emotional
suffering at the sight of the pitiful state in which she found her
son’s lifeless body be categorically attributed to petitioner’s
conduct. The hospital employed reasonable means to
disseminate notifications intended to reach the relatives of the
deceased. If the relatives failed to immediately receive notice
of her son’s death because the notices did not properly state
the name or identity of the deceased, fault cannot be laid to
the hospital. Hence, the organ removal is valid.
Cereno vs CA
Facts: Raymond, a victim of stabbing was brought into the
hospital and was attended by doctors. The parents of Raymond
were instructed to procure a certain amount of blood that is
necessary for Raymond’s operation. However, the doctors were
busy attending other patients before they have the time to
attend to Raymond’s operation. During the operation Raymond
died, his parents sue the doctors for negligence to attend to
him promptly.
Issue: whether or not the doctors are negligent
Ruling: No, the type of lawsuit which has been called medical
malpractice or medical negligence is that type of claim which a
victim has available to him or her to redress a wrong committed
by a medical professional which has caused bodily harm. In
order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove
that a health care provider, in most cases a physician, either
failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care
provider would have done, or that he or she did something that
a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that
the failure or action caused injury to the patient. State
otherwise, the complainant must prove 1) the health care
provider, either by his act or omission, had been negligent, and
2) that such act or omission proximately caused the injury
complained of. The best way to prove these is through the
opinions of expert witnesses belonging in the same
neighbourhood and in the same general line of practice as
defendant physician or surgeon
Given that Dr. Tatad was already engaged in another urgent
operation and that Raymond was not showing any symptom of
suffering from major blood loss requiring an immediate
operation? We find it reasonable that petitioners decided to
wait for Dr. Tatad to finish her surgery and not to call the
standby anaesthesiologist anymore. There is, after all, no
evidence that shows that a prudent surgeon faced with similar
circumstances would decide otherwise.
The parents of Raymond failed to prove negligence, and also no
proof was presented that Raymond’s life would have been
saved had an early operation was done, these are mere
assumptions and cannot guaranteed their desired results.