RAMOS vs.

COURT OF APPEALS Ponente:

Kapunan
FACTS:
Erlinda Ramos underwent a surgical procedure to remove stone from her gall bladder (
cholecystectomy
). They hired Dr. Hosaka, a surgeon, to conduct the surgery at the De Los Santos Medical Center (DLSMC). Hosaka assured them that he
would find a good anesthesiologist. But the operation did not go as planned, Dr. Hosaka arrived 3 hours late for the operation, Dra.
Gutierrez, the anesthesiologist “botched” the administration of the anesthesia causing
Erlinda to go into a coma and suffer brain damage. The botched operation was witnessed by Herminda Cruz, sister in law of Erlinda and
Dean of College of Nursing of Capitol Medical Center. The family of Ramos (petitioners) sued the hospital, the surgeon and the
anesthesiologist for damages. The petitioners showed expert testimony showing that Erlinda's condition was caused
by the anesthesiologist in not exercising reasonable care in “intubating” Erlinda. Eyewitnesses heard the anesthesiologist saying “ Ang hirap
ma-intubate nito, mali yata ang pagkakapasok. O lumalaki ang tiyan.”
Diagnostic tests prior to surgery showed that Erlinda was robust and fit to undergo surgery. The RTC held that the anesthesiologist ommitted
to exercise due care in intubating the patient,
the surgeon was remiss in his obligation to provide a “good anesthesiologist” and for arriving 3
hours late and the hospital is liable for the negligence of the doctors and for not cancelling the operation after the surgeon failed to arrive on
time. The surgeon, anesthesiologist and the DLSMC were all held jointly and severally liable for damages to petitioners. The CA reversed the
decision of the Trial Court.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the private respondents were negligent and thereby caused the comatose condition of Ramos.

HELD:
Yes, private respondents were all negligent and are solidarily liable for the damages.

RATIO:

Res Ipsa loquitur

– a procedural or evidentiary rule which means “the thing or the transaction speaks for itself.” It is a max
im for the 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 plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant
to meet with an explanation, where ordinarily in a medical malpractice case, the complaining party must present expert testimony to prove that
the attending physician was negligent. This doctrine finds application in this case. On the day of the operation, Erlinda Ramos already
surrendered her person to the private respondents who had complete and exclusive control over her. Apart from the gallstone problem, she
was neurologically sound and fit. Then, after the procedure, she was comatose and brain damaged
— res ipsa loquitur!
—the thing speaks for itself!
Negligence
– Private respondents were not able to disprove the presumption of negligence on their part in the care of Erlinda and their negligence was the
proximate cause of her condition. One need not be an anesthesiologist in order to tell whether or not the intubation was a success. [res ipsa
loquitur applies here]. The Supreme Court also found that the anesthesiologist only saw Erlinda for the first time on the day of the operation
which indicates unfamiliarity with the patient and which is an act of negligence and irresponsibility. The head surgeon, Dr. Hosaka was also
negligent. He failed to exercise the proper authority as
the “captain of the ship” in determining if the anesthesiologist observed the pr
oper protocols. Also, because he was late, he did not have time to confer with the anesthesiologist regarding the
anesthesia delivery. The hospital failed to adduce evidence showing that it exercised the diligence of a good father of the family in hiring and
supervision of its doctors (Art. 2180). The hospital was negligent since
they are the one in control of the hiring and firing of their “consultants”. While these consultants
are not employees, hospitals still exert significant controls on the selection and termination of doctors who work there which is one of the
hallmarks of an employer-employee reationship. Thus, the hospital was allocated a share in the liability.
Damages – temperate damages can and should be awarded on top of actual or compensatory damages in instances where the injury is
chronic and continuing.