REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REGIONAL TRIAL COURT NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION BRANCH 88, TAGUIG CITY

MARIA CHARINA V. DE OFALSA, Plaintiff, - versus Dr. DANNICA B. DILIG, Dr. JOSE F. DIOMAMPA, Dr. ANTHONY T. BIERNES, and DDASIAN HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants. x-----------------------------------------------x Civil Case No. __________

COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF, by and through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully alleges: 1. Plaintiff is of legal age, married, Filipino citizen and with residence and

postal address at No. 108, M.L. Quezon St., Hagonoy, Taguig City. She may be served with copies of pleadings, notices and other court processes through the undersigned counsel and/or law firm at the address indicated below. 2. Defendant Dr. Dannica B. Dilig (Dilig, for brevity) is, as far as plaintiff

knows, of legal age and with office address at Rms. 202-203, Dasian Hospital and Medical Center, Muntinlupa City, where she may be served with summons and other court processes.

3.

Defendant Dr. Jose F. Diomampa (Diomampa, for brevity) is, as far as

plaintiff knows, of legal age and with office address at c/o Dasian Hospital and Medical Center, Muntinlupa City, where he may be served with summons and other court processes. 4. Defendant Dr. Anthony T. Biernes (Biernes, for brevity) is, as far as

plaintiff knows, of legal age and with office address at the Office of the Medical Director, Dasian Hospital and Medical Center, Muntinlupa City, where he may be served with summons and other court processes. He is impleaded herein in his capacity as the Medical Director of Dasian Hospital and Medical Center. 5. Defendant Dasian Hospital and Medical Center (DHMC, for brevity) is,

as far as plaintiff knows, a hospital and a corporation organized and existing under Philippine laws, with principal place of business at The Dasian Hospital and Medical Center, Muntinlupa City, where it may be served with summons and other court processes. 6. Sometime in December 2011, plaintiff consulted defendant Dilig and in

the course of said consultations, the latter diagnosed plaintiff to have an ovarian cyst and recommended that plaintiff should undergo a surgical procedure called ovarian cyst removal. Thus, on 31 December 2011, defendants Dilig and Diomampa performed an ovarian cyst removal on plaintiff. 7. However, in the course of said surgical procedure, the plaintiffs

urinary bladder was perforated but the same was not noticed or detected by the defendants during the post operation inspection. Such perforation was not a part of the ovarian cyst removal procedure. 8. Consequently, a few days after the operation, plaintiff started to

complain of excruciating and severe pain, difficulty in breathing, inability to properly eat and sleep, as well as the bloating of her stomach. Despite her condition,

defendant Dilig callously demanded for full payment of her professional fees and immediately left for Malaysia. This was surprising because patients normally settle their bills when they are about to be discharged. Before defendant Dilig left, she diagnosed plaintiffs condition as gastro-intestinal in nature and turned over the plaintiff to a certain Dr. Novenario, a gastroenterologist. 9. Plaintiff was then subjected to several tests and procedures, only to

find out later that her problem was not gastro intestinal. By then, however, the condition of plaintiff had seriously deteriorated. During this time, plaintiff was forced to undergo difficult, painful, distressing but USELESS procedures. For instance, plaintiff had to undergo several prolonged fleet enemas and bear the pain and discomfort of NGT, all of which did not, in any way, improve her condition because the real problem, as it turned out, was not gastro intestinal in nature. In short, plaintiff was made to suffer unnecessarily and in vain. 10. In fairness to Dr. Novenario, he did not bill plaintiff for his services,

mindful of the fact that the gastro-related tests and procedures were completely unnecessary and useless. 11. It was only after eight (8) long, distressing days and sleepless nights

that the perforation of her urinary bladder was discovered, at which time, there were already about 5.5 liters of urine trapped in plaintiffs abdomen. It was determined that the root cause of the accumulated urine in the abdomen was a 0.5 x 0.5 cm perforation in her urinary bladder, which was, in turn, caused by the negligence of defendants Dilig and Diomampa while performing the ovarian cyst removal procedure. 12. Interestingly, previous laboratory test results four days after the

operation indicated moderate ascitis, which should have alerted the defendants as to the presence of trapped urine inside plaintiffs body. Likewise, defendants never considered or thought of closely monitoring the volume of plaintiffs urine output after

the operation. Thus, defendants remained oblivious as to the nature and cause of plaintiffs worsening condition. 13. The overall treatment accorded plaintiff was far from efficient and

reassuring. For instance, nobody even bothered to inform plaintiff as regards the schedule of giving medicines. The hospital personnel could not even properly insert plaintiffs I.V. and the spinal tap procedure was never explained to her. They just proceeded with the spinal tap procedure, unmindful and insensitive to the extreme pain experienced by plaintiff. 14. As a result of the perforation of plaintiffs urinary bladder, the latter had

to undergo a second and corrective operation to repair the perforation therein and to disinfect her body cavity, thereby resulting in further expenses, prolonged confinement, mental anguish and physical suffering, all because of the gross negligence of defendants Dilig and Diomampa. 15. Thereafter, plaintiff caused the sending of separate letters to all the

defendants, asking them to communicate with plaintiffs counsel for the purpose of settling the damage caused to the plaintiff by reason of the negligence and malpractice on the part of the defendants DHMC, Dilig and Diomampa. A copy of the letter sent to defendant Dilig is attached hereto as Annex A; a copy of the letter sent to defendant Diomampa is attached hereto as Annex B; and a copy of the letter sent to defendant DHMC is attached hereto as Annex C, all of which are made integral parts hereof. 16. However, instead of heeding the polite demands of plaintiff, defendant

DHMC, acting through defendant Biernes and its counsel, arrogantly refused to entertain plaintiffs just demands in a letter dated 18 March 2012, and even practically dared plaintiff and her counsel to take legal steps. A copy of said letter is attached hereto as Annex D and made an integral part hereof.

17.

As regards defendants Dilig and Diomampa, both of them simply

ignored plaintiffs demands. Thus, a reiteratory letter, dated 20 April 2012, was sent to said defendants. However, despite receipt thereof, defendants Dilig and Diomampa again decided to ignore the same. Copies of said reiteratory letters are attached hereto as Annexes E and F and are made an integral part hereof.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

18. 19. Defendants are liable for breach of contract. Plaintiff decided to undergo a surgical procedure called ovarian cyst

removal upon the recommendation of defendant Dilig. It was understood, and far from the expectations of plaintiff, that after the operation plaintiff would become well and not suffer from a perforated urinary bladder. In other words, there was an implied contract between plaintiff and defendants, whereby plaintiffs ovarian cyst would be removed in consideration of the payment of professional fees and the cost of the medicines, laboratory tests and hospitalization. In the process of removing the ovarian cyst, the defendants had the implied duty and obligation to exercise utmost care and diligence in order to prevent untoward incidents, like a perforated urinary bladder, from happening. This, the defendants failed to do. 20. Obviously, the procedure was done improperly and in a grossly

negligent manner, as shown by the result, i.e., a perforated urinary bladder in the course of removing an ovarian cyst.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

21. Apart from any contract, defendants are also liable for tort or quasi-

delict. A physician has a duty to his or her patient to exercise the required degree of care, skill and diligence in providing treatment and alleviating the sufferings of his or her patient. 22. A physician has the duty to possess knowledge and skill required by his profession and must utilize such knowledge and skill with the necessary care and diligence. In contravention of these duties, however, defendants exhibited lack of skill and knowledge and were evidently guilty of gross negligence. Such lack of skill and want of care and gross negligence directly caused serious injuries to the plaintiff and resulted in substantial expenses on her part. 23. Defendants Biernes and DHMC are liable for quasi-delict because they are the employers of defendants Dilig and Diomampa, in legal contemplation. Likewise, DHMC acting through defendant Biernes, its Medical Director, is the owner and/or manager of the hospital wherein the negligent acts were committed. Defendants Biernes and DHMC allowed defendants Dilig and Diomampa to perform a surgical procedure that said defendants were not capable of handling. As a result, they failed to prevent the damage, injury and unnecessary expenses suffered by plaintiff.

DAMAGES
24. As a result of defendants breach of contract and/or negligence

constituting quasi-delict, they are liable to plaintiff for damages. 25. Because of the incident, plaintiff has had to undergo an additional

operation and incur additional expenses, thereby unnecessarily incurring expenses in the amount of not less than PhP 300,000.00.

26.

Plaintiff is a busy businesswoman but because of what happened, she

had to stop working for weeks thereby losing potential income in the amount of at least PhP 500,000.00, representing cancelled transactions and unrealized profits. 27. Plaintiff was compelled to file this case because of defendants

obstinate and unjustified refusal to take responsibility for their actions. Her polite demands were arrogantly ignored. Thus, she had no other recourse but to hire a lawyer and pursue legal action. In the process, she will be spending for attorneys fees in the amount of at least PhP 500,000.00 and other legal expenses in the amount of at least PhP 100,000.00. 28. In addition to the physical injuries and pain, plaintiff has also suffered

and is still suffering from constant physical discomfort in the abdomen, mental anguish, severe anxiety and psychological torture caused by the incident. She felt violated, deceived and betrayed by defendants because she had entrusted her wellbeing to them but instead they caused her pain and injury. She has been suffering from sleepless nights, tormented by the memory of the botched procedure and the drain in her financial resources which could have been avoided, thereby entitling her to moral damages in the amount of, at least, PhP 400,000.00. 29. Defendants actions are deleterious to society. They set a bad example not only to their fellow physicians but also to other professionals in the service and medical field. Therefore, by way of example and correction for the public good, defendants should be made to pay, at least, PhP 200,000.00 as and by way of exemplary damages.

RELIEFS
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered:

(1)

Ordering defendants to pay, jointly and severally, unto the plaintiff the

amount of PhP 800,000.00, by way of actual and compensatory damages; the amount of PhP 400,000.00, by way of moral damages; the amount of PhP 200,000.00, by way of exemplary damages; the amount of PhP 500,000.00, by way of attorneys fees; the amount of PhP 100,000.00, as litigation expenses; and to pay the costs of suit. (2) Other just and equitable reliefs are, likewise, prayed for.

Pasig City, for Taguig City, 12 May 2007.

ORTEGA AND ORTEGA

Counsel for Plaintiff Unit 2202-A, West Tektite Tower, PSE Center, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines.

By:

PTR No. 3670982; 01.17.07; Pasig City IBP Lifetime Reg. No. 03344; Albay Chapter Roll No. 34161

JURIS PAZ Q. ORTEGA

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION I, MARIA CHARINA V. DE OFALSA, hereby state under oath: That I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled case. I caused the preparation of the foregoing Complaint; that I have read and understood the same; and that the allegations therein are based on my own personal knowledge and/or based on available and authentic case records. I HEREBYCERTIFY that, I have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no other action or claim is pending therein. If I should learn that the same or similar action has been filed or is pending, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days from notice. Taguig City, ___ May 2012.

MARIA CHARINA V. DE OFALSA Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___ day of May 2012, at Taguig City. Affiant exhibited to me her Community Tax Certificate No. ________________, issued on _______________, at __________________.

Doc. No. _____ Page No. _____ Book No. _____ Series of 2007.