Ilao-Oreta v Ronquillo
situation where there is a duty to act, not
Degrees of negligence| G.R. No. 172406. Oct 11, 2007|
Carpio-Morales| By J. Esteban
Facts: Spouses Eva Marie and Noel Ronquillo consulted Dr.
Concepcion Ilao-Oreta, an ob-gyn and the Chief of
Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Section of St.
Luke’s Medical Center, regarding their failure to have a child.
Upon the doctor’s advice, Eva Marie agreed to undergo a
laparoscopic procedure.
This procedure involved inserting a laparascope through the
abdominal wall to get a view of the internal reproductive
organ. This was to determine the real cause of infertility.
This procedure was scheduled on April 5, 1999, at 2:00 pm, to
be performed by Dr. Ilao-Oreta. At 7:00 am of that date, the
couple checked in at St. Luke’s Eva Marie underwent the pre
operative procedures including administration of IV fluid and
enema.
The doctor did not arrive at the scheduled time. There was
also no prior notice of cancellation of their appointment. It
was found out that the doctor was on a return flight from
Hawaii, scheduled to arrive at 10:00 pm, April 5, 1999.
The sps filed a complaint against Ilao-Oreta and SLMC for
breach of professional and service contract and for damages
with the RTC, praying for: actual damages (including lost
income of Noel while accompanying his wife to the hospital),
moral damages, exemplary damages, attys fees, and costs.
Dr. Ilao-Oreta indicated in her Answer that: the trip was for
her honeymoon, she believed in utmost good faith that she
would be back well before the procedure (she was scheduled
to leave Hawaii at 3:00 pm, April 4 and thus estimated she
would be back by early morning of April 5), and that she failed
to consider the time difference bet. Hawaii and Manila.
SLMC contended that the sps had not cause of action against
it, saying that the pre-op procedures were done without
delay, and any cause of action would be against the doctor.
RTC found the failure to arrive not intentional, and granted
only actual damages of P9,939. The contention of lost income
was also without proof.
The CA found Dr. Ilao-Oreta guilty of gross negligence,
increasing actual damages to P16, 069, and adding moral and
exemplary damages, and attys fees.
Issues:
1. W/n Dr Ilao-Oreta was guilty of gross negligence– No
a. Gross negligence –
Implies a want or absence of or failure to
exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire
absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless
disregard of consequences without any effort to
avoid them. It is characterized by want of even
slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with
a conscious indifference to consequences in so
far as other people may be affected.
b. Records show that the doctor had an earnest
intention to perform the procedure on the
proper time, having left an admitting order with
her secretary, appraised Eva Marie of the
necessary preparations, and instructed her staff
to perform pre-operative treatments.
c. The records also show that upon arrival in
Manila, the doctor attempted to rectify the
situation. Upon arrival, she called the hospital
and asked what happened to the patient (the
sps already left). The next day, she called the the
sps. She apologized and said that the procedure
could be performed that same day. The sps
declined.
d. The evidence then shows that the doctor, who
has previously travelled to the US twice, was
negligent in scheduling the procedure without
considering the time difference.
e. But, the doctor’s act did not reflect gross
negligence:
i. She actually believed she would arrive in
time.
ii. The operation was elective, whose
purpose is to determine cause of
infertility, not to cure a life threatening
disease.
iii. Thus, the doctor was not in the pursuit or
performance of conduct which any
ordinary person may deem to probably
and naturally result in injury.
iv. Also, it must be noted that at the time she
was scheduling the procedure, she had
just gotten married and was planning her
honeymoon, preparations attended with
excitement. Her negligence could thus be
partially attributed to human frailty.
2. W/n the CA’s award of damages was proper- for
moral, exemplary, and attys fees, NO; for actual
damages - REDUCED
a. The negligence not being gross, the sps could
not be awarded moral damages.
b. Exemplary damages also could not be awarded,
there being no showing that the doctor acted in
a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or
malevolent manner.
c. Attys fees also could not be awarded, since it
was shown that the sps did not exert enough
effort to settle the matter.
d. Further, actual damages should be reduced.
e. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages
for which the obligor who acted in good faith is
liable shall be those which are the natural and
probable consequences of the breach of the
obligation, and which the parties have foreseen
 or could have foreseen at the time the
obligation was constituted.
f. The CA and RTC included in computing actual
damages expenses incurred prior to April 5, as
well as unsubstantiated (only an unsigned
listing) food and gasoline expenses.

Ruling: CA decision modified, moral damages, exemplary

damages, attys fees removed, actual damages reduced. .