AIkICA v.

CAL1Lk

Iacts:
ln Lhe afLernoon of March 18, 1948, a flre broke ouL aL Lhe CalLex servlce sLaLlon aL Lhe corner of AnLlpolo SL. and 8lzal
Avenue, Manlla. lL sLarLed whlle gasollne was belng hosed from a Lank Lruck lnLo Lhe underground sLorage, rlghL aL Lhe
openlng of Lhe recelvlng Lank where Lhe nozzle of Lhe hose was lnserLed. 1he flre spread Lo and burned several houses.
1he owners, among Lhem peLlLloner spouses Afrlca and helrs of Cng, sued respondenLs CalLex hll., lnc., Lhe alleged
owner of Lhe sLaLlon, and MaLeo 8oqulren, Lhe agenL ln charge of lLs operaLlon, for damages. 1he Cll and CA found LhaL
Lhe peLlLloners falled Lo prove negllgence of Lhe respondenLs, and LhaL Lhere was due care ln Lhe premlses and wlLh
respecL Lo Lhe supervlslon of Lhelr employees.

Issue: WheLher or noL, wlLhouL proof as Lo Lhe cause and orlgln of Lhe flre, Lhe docLrlne of res lpsa loqulLur should apply
so as Lo presume negllgence on Lhe parL of Lhe respondenLs.

ne|d: es. 8es lpsa loqulLur llLerally means Lhe Lhlng or LransacLlon speaks for lLself." lor Lhe docLrlne of res lpsa
loqulLur Lo apply, Lhe followlng requlslLes should be presenL: (a) Lhe accldenL ls of a klnd whlch ordlnarlly does noL occur
ln Lhe absence of someone's negllgence, (b) lL ls caused by an lnsLrumenLallLy wlLhln Lhe excluslve conLrol of Lhe
defendanL or defendanLs, and (c) Lhe posslblllLy of conLrlbuLlng conducL whlch would make Lhe plalnLlff responslble ls
ellmlnaLed. ln Lhe case aL bar, Lhe gasollne sLaLlon, wlLh all lLs appllances, equlpmenL and employees, was under Lhe
conLrol of respondenLs. A flre occurred Lhereln and spread Lo and burned Lhe nelghborlng houses. 1he persons who
knew or could have known how Lhe flre sLarLed were respondenLs and Lhelr employees, buL Lhey gave no explanaLlon
Lhereof whaLsoever. lL ls a falr and reasonable lnference LhaL Lhe lncldenL happened because of wanL of care. 1he
negllgence of Lhe employees was Lhe proxlmaLe cause of Lhe flre, whlch ln Lhe ordlnary course of Lhlngs does noL
happen. 1herefore, Lhe peLlLloners are enLlLled Lo Lhe award for damages.

8A1IUIN V CA (vlllegas)238 SC8A 334 uAvluL, !uly 3, 1996 nA1u8L:
eLlLlon for revlew of Lhe declslon of Lhe CourL of Appeals
IAC1S-
Mrs. vlllegas submlLLed Lo ur. 8aLlquln for prenaLal care as Lhe laLLer's prlvaLe paLlenL someLlme before SepLember
21,1988. ln Lhe mornlng of SepLember 21, 1988 ur. 8aLlquln, along wlLh oLher physlclans and nurses, performed a
caesarean operaLlon on Mrs. vlllegas and successfully dellvered Lhe laLLer's baby. AfLer leavlng Lhe hosplLal, Mrs. vlllegas
began Lo suffer abdomlnal palns and complalned of belng feverlsh. She also gradually losL her appeLlLe, so she consulLed
ur. 8aLlquln aL Lhe laLLer's polycllnlc who prescrlbed for her cerLaln medlclnes. Powever, Lhe palns sLlll kepL recurrlng.
She Lhen consulLed ur.Ma. Salud kho. AfLer examlnlng her, ur kho suggesLed LhaL Mrs. vlllegas submlL Lo anoLher
surgery.-

When ur. kho opened Lhe abdomen of Mrs. vlllegas she found whlLlsh-yellow dlscharge lnslde, an ovarlan cysL on each
of Lhe lefL and rlghL ovarles whlch gave ouL pus, dlrL and pus behlnd Lhe uLerus, and a plece of rubber maLerlal on Lhe
rlghL slde of Lhe uLerus, embedded on Lhe ovarlan cysL. 1he plece of rubber appeared Lo be a parL of a rubber glove. 1hls
was Lhe cause of all of Lhe lnfecLlon of Lhe ovarles and consequenLly of all Lhe dlscomforL suffered by Mrs. vlllegas. 1he
plece of rubber allegedly found was noL presenLed ln courL, and ur. kho LesLlfled LhaL she senL lL Lo a paLhologlsL ln Cebu
ClLy for examlnaLlon. Aslde from ur. kho's LesLlmony, Lhe evldence whlch menLloned Lhe plece of rubber are a Medlcal
CerLlflcaLe, a rogress 8ecord, an AnaesLhesla 8ecord, a nurse's 8ecord, and a hyslclan's ulscharge Summary.
1he Lrlal courL, however, regarded Lhese documenLary evldence as mere hearsay, "Lhere belng no showlng LhaL Lhe
person or persons who prepared Lhe mare deceased or unable Lo LesLlfy on Lhe facLs Lhereln sLaLed- 1here was also
doubLs as Lo Lhe whereabouLs of Lhe plece of rubber, as 2 verslons arose from ur. kho's LesLlmony:
1) LhaL lL was senL Lo Lhe aLhologlsL ln Cebu as LesLlfled Lo ln CourL by ur. kho and
(2) LhaL ur. kho Lhrew lL away as Lold by her Lo uefendanL. 1he fallure of Lhe lalnLlffs Lo reconclle Lhese Lwo dlfferenL
verslons served only Lo weaken Lhelr clalm agalnsL uefendanL 8aLlquln. 8espondenL Lhen sued peLlLloner for damages.
81C held ln favor of peLlLloner. CA reversed, rullng for Lhe respondenL.

ISSUL: W/n peLlLloner ls llable Lo respondenL?
nLLD: LS, UNDLk 1nL kULL CI kLS ISA LCUI1Uk, Dk. 8A1IUIN IS LIA8LL.
- kes |psa |oqu|tur. 1he Lhlng speaks for lLself. 8ebuLLable presumpLlon or lnference LhaL defendanL was negllgenL,
whlch arlses upon proof LhaL Lhe lnsLrumenLallLy causlng ln[ury was ln defendanL's excluslve conLrol, and LhaL Lhe
accldenL was one whlch ordlnary does noL happen ln absence of negllgence. 8es lpsa loqulLur ls a rule of evldence
whereby negllgence of Lhe alleged wrongdoer may be lnferred from Lhe mere facL LhaL Lhe accldenL happened provlded
Lhe characLer of Lhe accldenL and clrcumsLances aLLendlng lL lead reasonably Lo bellef LhaL ln Lhe absence of negllgence
lL would noL have occurred and LhaL Lhlng whlch caused ln[ury ls shown Lo have been under Lhe managemenL and
conLrol of Lhe alleged wrongdoer. under Lhls docLrlne Lhe happenlng of an ln[ury permlLs an lnference of negllgence
where plalnLlff produces subsLanLlal evldence LhaL Lhe ln[ury was caused by an agency or lnsLrumenLallLy under Lhe
excluslve conLrol and managemenL of defendanL, and LhaL Lhe occurrence was such LhaL ln Lhe ordlnary course of Lhlngs
would noL happen lf reasonable care had been used.

- 1he doctr|ne of res |psa |oqu|tur as a rule of evldence ls pecullar Lo Lhe law of
negllgence whlch recognlzes LhaL prlma facle negllgence may be esLabllshed wlLhouL dlrecL proof and furnlshes a
subsLlLuLe for speclflc proof of negllgence. 1he docLrlne ls noL a rule of subsLanLlve law, buL merely a mode of proof or a
mere procedural convenlence. 1he rule, when appllcable Lo Lhe facLs and clrcumsLances of a parLlcular case, ls noL
lnLended Lo and does noL dlspense wlLh Lhe requlremenL of proof of culpable negllgence on Lhe parLy charged. lL merely
deLermlnes and regulaLes whaL shall be prlma facle evldence Lhereof and faclllLaLes Lhe burden of plalnLlff of provlng a
breach of Lhe duLy of due care.
1he docLrlne can be lnvoked when and only when, under Lhe clrcumsLances lnvolved, dlrecL evldence ls absenL and noL
readlly avallable.

ln Lhe lnsLanL case, all Lhe requlslLes for recourse Lo Lhe docLrlne are presenL. llrsL, Lhe enLlre proceedlngs of Lhe
caesarean secLlon were under Lhe excluslve conLrol of ur. 8aLlquln.
ln Lhls llghL, Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs were berefL of dlrecL evldence as Lo Lhe acLual culprlL or Lhe exacL cause of Lhe
forelgn ob[ecL flndlng lLs way lnLo prlvaLe respondenL vlllegas's body, whlch, needless Lo say, does noL occur unless
Lhrough Lhe lnLersecLlon of negllgence.

Second, slnce aslde from Lhe caesarean secLlon, prlvaLe respondenL vlllegas underwenL no oLher operaLlon whlch could
have caused Lhe offendlng plece of rubber Lo appear ln her uLerus, lL sLands Lo reason LhaL such could only have been a
by-producL of Lhe caesarean secLlon performed by ur. 8aLlquln. 1he peLlLloners, ln Lhls regard, falled Lo overcome Lhe
presumpLlon of negllgence arlslng from resorL Lo Lhe docLrlne of res lpsa loqulLur. ur. 8aLlquln ls Lherefore llable for
negllgenLly leavlng behlnd a plece of rubber ln prlvaLe respondenL vlllegas's abdomen and for all Lhe adverse effecLs
Lhereof.

C.8. no. 118141 SepLember 3, 1997
GAkCIA-kULDA vs. ASCASIC
IAC1S:
llorenclo v. 8ueda, husband of peLlLloner Leonlla Carcla-8ueda, underwenL surglcal operaLlon aL Lhe uS1 hosplLal for
Lhe removal of a sLone blocklng hls ureLer. Pe was aLLended by ur. uomlngo AnLonlo, !r. who was Lhe surgeon, whlle ur.
Lrllnda 8alaLbaL-8eyes was Lhe anaesLheslologlsL. Slx hours afLer Lhe surgery, however, llorenclo dled of compllcaLlons
of" unknown cause," accordlng Lo offlclals of Lhe uS1 PosplLal. noL saLlsfled wlLh Lhe flndlngs of Lhe hosplLal, peLlLloner
requesLed Lhe naLlonal 8ureau of lnvesLlgaLlon (n8l) Lo conducL an auLopsy on her husband's body. ConsequenLly, Lhe
n8l ruled LhaL llorenclo's deaLh was due Lo lack of care by Lhe aLLendlng physlclan ln admlnlsLerlng anaesLhesla.

ursuanL Lo lLs flndlngs, Lhe n8l recommended LhaL ur. uomlngo AnLonlo and ur. Lrllnda 8alaLbaL-8eyes be charged for
Pomlclde Lhrough 8eckless lmprudence before Lhe Cfflce of Lhe ClLy rosecuLor. uurlng Lhe prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon,
whaL Lransplred was a confoundlng serles of evenLs whlch we shall Lry Lo dlsenLangle. 1he case was lnlLlally asslgned Lo
rosecuLor AnLonlo M. lsrael, who had Lo lnhlblL hlmself because he was relaLed Lo Lhe counsel of one of Lhe docLors. As
a resulL ,Lhe case was re-raffled Lo rosecuLor norberLo C. Leono who was, however, dlsquallfled on moLlon of Lhe
peLlLloner slnce he dlsregarded prevalllng laws and [urlsprudence regardlng prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon.

1he case was Lhen referred Lo rosecuLor 8amon C. Carlsma, who lssued a resoluLlon recommendlng LhaL only ur. 8eyes
be held crlmlnally llable and LhaL Lhe complalnL agalnsL ur.AnLonlo be dlsmlssed. 1he case Look anoLher perplexlng Lurn
when AsslsLanL ClLy rosecuLor !oseflna SanLos Sloson, ln Lhe "lnLeresL of [usLlce and peace of mlnd of Lhe parLles,"
recommended LhaL Lhe case be re-raffled on Lhe ground LhaL rosecuLor Carlsma was parLlal Lo Lhe peLlLloner. 1hus, Lhe
case was Lransferred Lo rosecuLor Leoncla 8. ulmaglba, where a
volLe face occurred agaln wlLh Lhe endorsemenL LhaL Lhe complalnL agalnsL ur. 8eyes be dlsmlssed and lnsLead, a
correspondlng lnformaLlon be flled agalnsL ur. AnLonlo. eLlLloner flled a moLlon for reconslderaLlon, quesLlonlng Lhe
flndlngs of rosecuLor ulmaglba. endlng Lhe resoluLlon of peLlLloner's moLlon for reconslderaLlon regardlng rosecuLor
ulmaglba's resoluLlon, Lhe lnvesLlgaLlve "plng pong" conLlnued when Lhe case was agaln asslgned Lo anoLher prosecuLor,
Ludoxla 1. CualberLo, who recommended LhaL ur. 8eyes be lncluded ln Lhe crlmlnal lnformaLlon of Pomlclde Lhrough
8eckless lmprudence. Whlle Lhe recommendaLlon of rosecuLor CualberLo was pendlng, Lhe case was Lransferred Lo
Senlor SLaLe rosecuLor CregorloA. Arlzala, who resolved Lo exoneraLe ur. 8eyes from any wrongdolng, a resoluLlon
whlch was approved by boLh ClLy rosecuLor orflrlo C. Macaraeg and ClLy rosecuLor !esus l. Cuerrero.

Aggrleved, peLlLloner flled grafL charges speclflcally for vlolaLlon of SecLlon 3(e) of 8epubllc AcL no. 3019 agalnsL
rosecuLors Cuerrero, Macaraeg, and Arlzala for manlfesL parLlallLyln favor of ur. 8eyes before Lhe Cfflce of Lhe
Cmbudsman. Powever, on !uly 11, 1994, Lhe Cmbudsman lssued Lhe assalled resoluLlon dlsmlsslng Lhe complalnL for
lack of evldence .ln flne, peLlLloner assalls Lhe exerclse of Lhe dlscreLlonary power of Lhe Cmbudsman Lo revlew Lhe
recommendaLlons of Lhe governmenL prosecuLors and Lo approve and dlsapprove Lhe same. eLlLloner faulLs Lhe
Cmbudsman for, allegedly ln grave abuse of dlscreLlon, refuslng Lo flnd LhaL Lhere exlsLs probable cause Lo hold publlc
respondenL ClLy rosecuLors llable for vlolaLlon ofSecLlon 3(e) of 8.A. no. 3019.

ISSUL: WheLher or noL experL LesLlmony ls necessary Lo prove Lhe negllgenL acL of Lhe respondenL.
kULING: ln accepLlng a case, a docLor ln effecL represenLs LhaL, havlng Lhe needed Lralnlng and sklll possessed by
physlclans and surgeons pracLlclng ln Lhe same fleld, he wlll employ such Lralnlng, care and sklll ln Lhe LreaLmenL of hls
paLlenLs. Pe Lherefore has a duLy Lo use aL leasL Lhe same level of care LhaL any oLher reasonably compeLenL docLor
would use Lo LreaL a condlLlon under Lhe same clrcumsLances.
lL ls ln Lhls aspecL of medlcal malpracLlce LhaL experL LesLlmony ls essenLlal Lo esLabllsh noL only Lhe sLandard of care of
Lhe professlon buL also LhaL Lhe physlclan's conducL ln Lhe LreaLmenL and care falls below such sLandard. lurLher,
lnasmuch as Lhe causes of Lhe ln[urles lnvolved ln malpracLlce acLlons are deLermlnable only ln Lhe llghL of sclenLlflc
knowledge, lL has been recognlzed LhaL experL LesLlmony ls usually necessary Lo supporL Lhe concluslon as Lo causaLlon.

lmmedlaLely apparenL from a revlew of Lhe records of Lhls case ls Lhe absence of any experL LesLlmony on Lhe maLLer of
Lhe sLandard of care employed by oLher physlclans of good sLandlng ln Lhe conducL of slmllar operaLlons. 1he
prosecuLlon's experL wlLnesses ln Lhe persons ofur. lloresLo Arlzala and ur. nleLo Salvador, !r. of Lhe naLlonal 8ureau of
lnvesLlgaLlon (n8l) only LesLlfled as Lo Lhe posslble cause of deaLh buL dld noL venLure Lo lllumlnaLe Lhe courL on Lhe
maLLer of Lhe sLandard of care LhaL peLlLloner should have exerclsed.

1he beLLer and more loglcal remedy under Lhe clrcumsLances would have been Lo appeal Lhe resoluLlon of Lhe ClLy
rosecuLors dlsmlsslng Lhe crlmlnal complalnL Lo Lhe SecreLary of !usLlce under Lhe ueparLmenL of !usLlce's Crder no.
223, oLherwlse known as Lhe "1993 8evlsed 8ules on Appeals lrom 8esoluLlons ln rellmlnary
lnvesLlgaLlons/8elnvesLlgaLlons," as amended by Department Crder No. 3S9, Sect|on 1 of wh|ch prov|des: Sec. 1.
What May 8e Appea|ed
. - Cnly resoluLlons of Lhe Chlef SLaLe rosecuLor/8eglonal SLaLe rosecuLor/rovlnclal or ClLy rosecuLor dlsmlsslng a
crlmlnal complalnL may be Lhe sub[ecL of an appeal Lo Lhe SecreLary of !usLlceexcepL as oLherwlse provlded ln SecLlon 4
hereof. WhaL acLlon may Lhe SecreLary of !usLlce Lake on Lhe appeal? SecLlon 9 of Crder no. 223sLaLes: "1he SecreLary of
!usLlce may reverse, afflrm or modlfy Lhe appealed resoluLlon." Cn LheoLher hand, "Pe may
moLu proprlo
or on moLlon of Lhe appellee, dlsmlss ouLrlghL Lhe appeal on speclfled grounds."ln exerclslng hls dlscreLlon under Lhe
clrcumsLances, Lhe Cmbudsman acLed wlLhln hls power and auLhorlLy ln dlsmlsslng Lhe complalnL agalnsL Lhe
rosecuLors and Lhls CourL wlll noL lnLerfere wlLh Lhe same .eLlLlon ls dlsmlssed.

ln Lhe lnsLanL case, no |ess than the N8I pronounced after conduct|ng an autopsy that there was |ndeed neg||gence on
the part of the attend|ng phys|c|ans |n adm|n|ster|ng the anaesthes|a. [11] 1he facL of wanL of compeLence or dlllgence
ls evldenLlary ln naLure, Lhe veraclLy of whlch can besL be passed upon afLer a full-blown Lrlal for lL ls vlrLually lmposslble
Lo ascerLaln Lhe merlLs of a medlcal negllgence case wlLhouL exLenslve lnvesLlgaLlon, research, evaluaLlon and
consulLaLlons wlLh medlcal experLs. Clearly, Lhe ClLy rosecuLors are noL ln a compeLenL poslLlon Lo pass [udgmenL on
such a Lechnlcal maLLer, especlally when Lhere are confllcLlng evldence and flndlngs. 1he bases of a parLy's accusaLlon
and defenses are beLLer venLllaLed aL Lhe Lrlal proper Lhan aL Lhe prellmlnary lnvesLlgaLlon.

A word on medlcal malpracLlce or negllgence cases. ln lLs slmplesL Lerms, Lhe Lype of lawsulL whlch has been called
medlcal malpracLlce or, more approprlaLely, medlcal negllgence, ls LhaL Lype of clalm whlch a vlcLlm has avallable Lo hlm
or her Lo redress a wrong commlLLed by a medlcal professlonal whlch has caused bodlly harm.

ln order Lo successfully pursue such a clalm, a paLlenL musL prove LhaL a healLh care provlder, ln mosL cases a physlclan,
elLher falled Lo do someLhlng whlch a reasonably prudenL healLh care provlder would have done, or LhaL he or she dld
someLhlng LhaL a reasonably prudenL provlder would noL have done, and LhaL LhaL fallure or acLlon caused ln[ury Lo Lhe
paLlenL."[12]

Pence, Lhere are four e|ements |nvo|ved |n med|ca| neg||gence cases: duty, breach, |n[ury and prox|mate causat|on.
LvldenLly, when the v|ct|m emp|oyed the serv|ces of Dr. Anton|o and Dr. keyes, a phys|c|an-pat|ent re|at|onsh|p was
created. In accept|ng the case, Dr. Anton|o and Dr. keyes |n effect represented that, hav|ng the needed tra|n|ng and
sk||| possessed by phys|c|ans and surgeons pract|c|ng |n the same f|e|d, they w||| emp|oy such tra|n|ng, care and sk||| |n
the treatment of the|r pat|ents.[13] 1hey have a duty to use at |east the same |eve| of care that any other reasonab|y
competent doctor wou|d use to treat a cond|t|on under the same c|rcumstances. 1he breach of these profess|ona|
dut|es of sk||| and care, or the|r |mproper performance, by a phys|c|an surgeon whereby the pat|ent |s |n[ured |n body
or |n hea|th, const|tutes act|onab|e ma|pract|ce.[14] Consequent|y, |n the event that any |n[ury resu|ts to the pat|ent
from want of due care or sk||| dur|ng the operat|on, the surgeons may be he|d answerab|e |n damages for
neg||gence.[13]

Moreover, ln malpracLlce or negllgence cases lnvolvlng Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of anaesLhesla, Lhe necesslLy of experL
LesLlmony and Lhe avallablllLy of Lhe charge of res lpsa loqulLur Lo Lhe plalnLlff, have been applled ln acLlons agalnsL
anaesLheslologlsLs Lo hold Lhe defendanL llable for Lhe deaLh or ln[ury of a paLlenL under excesslve or lmproper
anaesLhesla.[16] LssenLlally, lL requlres Lwo-pronged evldence: ev|dence as to the recogn|zed standards of the med|ca|
commun|ty |n the part|cu|ar k|nd of case, and a show|ng that the phys|c|an |n quest|on neg||gent|y departed from th|s
standard |n h|s treatment.[17]

AnoLher elemenL ln medlcal negllgence cases ls causaLlon whlch ls dlvlded lnLo Lwo lnqulrles: whether the doctor's
act|ons |n fact caused the harm to the pat|ent and whether these were the prox|mate cause of the pat|ent's
|n[ury.[18] lndeed here, a causal connecLlon ls dlscernlble from Lhe occurrence of Lhe vlcLlm's deaLh afLer Lhe negllgenL
acL of Lhe anaesLheslologlsL ln admlnlsLerlng Lhe anesLhesla, a facL whlch, lf conflrmed, should warranL Lhe flllng of Lhe
approprlaLe crlmlnal case. 1o be sure, Lhe allegaLlon of negllgence ls noL enLlrely baseless. Moreover, Lhe n8l deduced
LhaL Lhe aLLendlng surgeons dld noL conducL Lhe necessary lnLervlew of Lhe paLlenL prlor Lo Lhe operaLlon. lL appears
LhaL Lhe cause of Lhe deaLh of Lhe vlcLlm could have been averLed had Lhe proper drug been applled Lo cope wlLh Lhe
sympLoms of mallgnanL hyperLhermla. Also, we cannoL lgnore Lhe facL LhaL an anLldoLe was readlly avallable Lo
counLeracL whaLever deleLerlous effecL Lhe anaesLhesla mlghL produce. [19] Why Lhese precauLlonary measures were
dlsregarded musL be sufflclenLly explalned.


L| v So||man Iune 7,2011
vlllarama, !r., !.
!une 7, 2001

kA1IC DLCIDLNDI: ln a malpracLlce acLlon based upon Lhe docLrlne of lofotmeJ cooseot, four essenLlal elemenLs musL
be proven:
1) 1he physlclan had a duLy Lo dlsclose maLerlal rlsks
2) S/he falled Lo dlsclose or lnadequaLely dlsclosed Lhose rlsks
3) As a dlrecL and proxlmaLe resulL of Lhe fallure Lo dlsclose, Lhe paLlenL consenLed Lo LreaLmenL s/he
oLherwlse would noL have consenLed Lo
4) lalnLlff was ln[ured by Lhe proposed LreaLmenL

UICk IAC1S: Spouses Sollman's daughLer underwenL knee ampuLaLlon, whlch necesslLaLed ad[uvanL chemoLherapy Lo
mlnlmlze Lhe chances of recurrence and prevenL Lhe dlsease from spreadlng Lo oLher parLs of Lhe body. 11 days afLer Lhe
admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe flrsL cycle of Lhe chemoLherapy reglmen, spouses Sollman's daughLer dled.

IAC1S:
name of peLlLloner- ur. 8ubl Ll
name of respondenL- Spouses 8eynaldo and Llna Sollman

o Spouses Sollman's daughLer, Angellca Sollman, was found Lo be sufferlng from osteosotcomo, osLeoblasLlc Lype,
a hlgh-grade (hlghly mallgnanL) cancer of Lhe bone whlch usually affecLs Leenage chlldren.
o lollowlng Lhls dlagnosls, Angellca's rlghL leg was ampuLaLed by ur. !alme 1amayo ln order Lo remove Lhe Lumor.
As ad[uvanL LreaLmenL, chemoLherapy was suggesLed. Angellca was referred Lo ur. Ll, a medlcal oncologlsL. She
was dlscharged four days afLer Lhe surgery buL was lnsLrucLed Lo reLurn afLer Lwo or Lhree weeks for Lhe
chemoLherapy. Cn AugusL 18, 1993, she was readmlLLed Lo SL. Luke's Medlcal CenLer (SLMC). She dled 11 days
laLer. SLMC refused Lo release a deaLh cerLlflcaLe wlLhouL paymenL of Lhe hosplLal blll. Pence, Lhe spouses
broughL Lhelr daughLer's cadaver Lo Lhe n Crlme LaboraLory for posL-morLem examlnaLlon.
o 1he Medlco-Legal 8eporL lndlcaLed Lhe cause of deaLh as Pypovolemlc shock secondary Lo mulLlple organ
hemorrhages and ulssemlnaLed lnLravascular CoagulaLlon." Cn Lhe oLher hand, Lhe CerLlflcaLe of ueaLh lssued
by SLMC lndlcaLed LhaL Lhe lmmedlaLe cause of deaLh was osLeosarcoma. 1he spouses flled a damage sulL
agalnsL ur. Ll, ur. Marbella and ur. Ledesma (ur. Ll's asslsLanLs ln handllng Angellca's case), ur. ArrleLe, and
SLMC.
! 1hey were charged wlLh negllgence and dlsregard of Angellca's safeLy, healLh, and welfare by Lhelr
careless admlnlsLraLlon of Lhe chemoLherapy drugs, Lhelr fallure Lo observe Lhe essenLlal precauLlons ln
deLecLlng early Lhe sympLoms of faLal blood plaLeleL decrease and sLopplng early on Lhe chemoLherapy,
whlch bleedlng led Lo hypovolemlc shock LhaL caused Angellca's unLlmely demlse.
! ur. Ll assured Lhe spouses LhaL Angellca would recover ln vlew of 93 chance of heallng wlLh
chemoLherapy and enumeraLed Lhe slde effecLs as: (1) sllghL vomlLlng, (2) halr loss, and (3) weakness.
! Spouses clalm LhaL Lhey would noL have glven Lhelr consenL Lo chemoLherapy had ur. Ll noL falsely
assured Lhem of lLs slde effecLs.
o ur. Ll denled havlng been negllgenL ln admlnlsLerlng Lhe chemoLherapy drugs Lo Angellca and asserLed LhaL she
had fully explalned Lo Lhe spouses how Lhe chemoLherapy wlll affecL noL only Lhe cancer cells buL also Lhe
paLlenL's normal body parLs, lncludlng Lhe whlLe and red blood cells and plaLeleLs.
! WhaL happened Lo Angellca can be aLLrlbuLed Lo mallgnanL Lumor cells posslbly lefL behlnd afLer
surgery. lew as Lhey may be, Lhese have Lhe capaclLy Lo compeLe for nuLrlenLs such LhaL Lhe body
becomes so weak sLrucLurally (cachexla) and funcLlonally ln Lhe form of lower reslsLance of Lhe body Lo
combaL lnfecLlon.
! 1hls lnfecLlon becomes unconLrollable and Lrlggers a chaln of evenLs (sepsls or sepLlcemla) LhaL may lead
Lo bleedlng ln Lhe form of ulssemlnaLed lnLravascular CoagulaLlon (ulC), as whaL Lhe auLopsy reporL
showed ln Lhe case of Angellca.
o WlLnesses presenLed by spouses:
! ur. vergara (medlco-legal): Lhe ulC can be aLLrlbuLed Lo Lhe chemlcal agenLs ln Lhe drugs glven Lo Lhe
vlcLlm, whlch caused plaLeleL reducLlon resulLlng Lo bleedlng sufflclenL Lo cause Lhe vlcLlm's deaLh. 1he
Llme lapse for Lhe producLlon of ulC (from Lhe Llme of dlagnosls of sarcoma) was Loo shorL, conslderlng
Lhe survlval raLe of abouL 3 years. ur. vergara admlLLed LhaL she ls noL a paLhologlsL buL her sLaLemenLs
were based on Lhe oplnlon of an oncologlsL whom she had lnLervlewed.
! ur. 8almaceda: lL ls Lhe physlclan's duLy Lo lnform and explaln Lo Lhe paLlenL or hls relaLlves every known
slde effecL of Lhe procedure or LherapeuLlc agenLs Lo be admlnlsLered, before securlng Lhe consenL of
Lhe paLlenL or hls relaLlves Lo such procedure or Lherapy. Pe sLressed LhaL Lhe paLlenL or relaLlves musL
be lnformed of all known slde effecLs based on sLudles and observaLlons, even lf such wlll aggravaLe Lhe
paLlenL's condlLlon.
o ur. 1amayo (who performed Lhe ampuLaLlon) LesLlfled for ur. Ll : ur. Ll was one of Lhe mosL proflclenL ln Lhe
LreaLmenL of cancer and Lhe paLlenL was affllcLed wlLh a very aggresslve Lype of cancer necesslLaLlng
chemoLherapy as ad[uvanL LreaLmenL
o 81C- ur. Ll ls noL llable for damages as she observed Lhe besL known procedures and employed her hlghesL sklll
and knowledge ln Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of chemoLherapy drugs on Angellca. ClLlng lcarL v SmlLh, declared LhaL Ll
has Laken Lhe necessary precauLlon agalnsL Lhe adverse effecL of chemoLherapy on Angellca. A wrong declslon ls
noL by lLself negllgence.
o CA- awarded damages, whlle Lhere was no negllgence on her parL, ur. Ll as her aLLendlng physlclan falled Lo fully
explaln Lo Lhe spouses all Lhe known slde effecLs of chemoLherapy (docLrlne of lnformed consenL)

ISSUL: Won ur. Ll can be llable for fallure Lo fully dlsclose serlous slde effecLs of chemoLherapy, desplLe Lhe absence of
flndlng LhaL ur. Ll was negllgenL ln admlnlsLerlng sald LreaLmenL.

uLClSlCn: no. 1) 1here was adequaLe dlsclosure of maLerlal rlsks and 2) Lhe spouses falled Lo presenL experL LesLlmony.
kA1IC: 1he docLrlne of lnformed consenL wlLhln Lhe conLexL of physlclan-paLlenL relaLlonshlps goes far back lnLo Lngllsh
common law.
! As early as 1767, docLors were charged wlLh baLLery" (unauLhorlzed physlcal conLacL wlLh a paLlenL) lf
Lhey had noL galned Lhe consenL of Lhelr paLlenLs prlor Lo performlng a surgery or procedure.
! Schoendorff v SocleLy of new ?ork PosplLal: Lvery human belng of adulL years and sound mlnd has a
rlghL Lo deLermlne whaL shall be done wlLh hls own body, and a surgeon who performs an operaLlon
wlLhouL hls consenL, commlLs and assaulL, for whlch he ls llable ln damages.
! CanLerbury v Spence: (as Lo scope of dlsclosure) 1he dlsclosure rule only requlres of Lhe physlclan a
reasonable explanaLlon, whlch means generally lnformlng Lhe paLlenL ln nonLechnlcal Lerms as Lo whaL
ls aL sLake, Lhe Lherapy alLernaLlves avallable Lo hlm, Lhe goals expecLably Lo be achleved, and Lhe rlsks
LhaL may ensue from parLlcular LreaLmenL or no LreaLmenL.
! 1he paLlenL's rlghL of self-declslon can only be effecLlvely exerclsed lf Lhe paLlenL possesses adequaLe
lnformaLlon Lo enable hlm ln maklng an lnLelllgenL cholce. 1he LesL Lherefore for deLermlnlng wheLher a
poLenLlal perll musL be dlvulged ls lLs maLerlallLy Lo Lhe paLlenL's declslon.
o lour essenLlal elemenLs Lo prove ln a malpracLlce acLlon based upon Lhe docLrlne of lnformed consenL: (1) 1he
physlclan had a duLy Lo dlsclose maLerlal rlsks, (2) S/he falled Lo dlsclose or lnadequaLely dlsclosed Lhose rlsks,
(3) As a dlrecL and proxlmaLe resulL of Lhe fallure Lo dlsclose, Lhe paLlenL consenLed Lo LreaLmenL s/he oLherwlse
would noL have consenLed Lo and (4) lalnLlff was ln[ured by Lhe proposed LreaLmenL
o lalnLlff ls requlred Lo polnL Lo slgnlflcanL undlsclosed lnformaLlon relaLlng Lo Lhe LreaLmenL whlch would have
alLered her declslon Lo undergo lL.
o Cn dlsclosure of maLerlal rlsks
! 1here was adequaLe dlsclosure of maLerlal rlsks lnherenL ln Lhe chemoLherapy procedure performed
wlLh Lhe consenL of Angellca's parenLs.
! When ur. Ll lnformed Lhe spouses beforehand of Lhe slde effecLs whlch lnclude lowered counLs of W8C
and 88C, decrease ln blood plaLeleLs, posslble kldney or hearL damage and skln darkenlng, tbete ls
teosoooble expectotloo oo tbe pott of tbe Joctot tbot tbe tespooJeots ooJetstooJ vety well tbot tbe
sevetlty of tbese slJe effects wlll oot be tbe some fot oll potleots ooJetqoloq tbe ptoceJote. 8y Lhe very
naLure of Lhe dlsease, Lhe physlclan cannoL preclsely deLermlne each paLlenL's reacLlon Lo Lhe chemlcal
agenLs.
! 1haL deaLh can posslbly resulL from compllcaLlons of Lhe LreaLmenL or Lhe underlylng cancer lLself ls a
rlsk LhaL cannoL be ruled ouL, as wlLh mosL oLher ma[or medlcal procedures, buL concluslon can be
reasonably drawn from Lhe general slde effecLs of chemoLherapy already dlsclosed.
o Cn fallure Lo presenL experL LesLlmony
! ln a medlcal malpracLlce acLlon based on lack of lnformed consenL, Lhe plalnLlff musL prove boLh Lhe
duLy and Lhe breach of LhaL duLy Lhrough experL LesLlmony. Such LesLlmony musL show Lhe cusLomary
sLandard of care of physlclans ln Lhe same pracLlce as LhaL of Lhe defendanL docLor.
! 1he LesLlmony of ur. 8almaceda, who ls noL an oncologlsL, does noL quallfy as experL LesLlmony Lo
esLabllsh Lhe sLandard of care ln obLalnlng consenL for chemoLherapy LreaLmenL.

Carp|o, d|ssent|ng.
o 1here are Lwo sLandards by whlch courLs deLermlne whaL consLlLuLes adequaLe dlsclosure of assoclaLed rlsks
and slde effecLs of a proposed LreaLmenL:
! hyslclan sLandard- a docLor ls obllgaLed Lo dlsclose LhaL lnformaLlon whlch a reasonable docLor ln Lhe
same fleld of experLlse would have dlsclosed Lo hls/her paLlenL
! aLlenL sLandard- a docLor ls obllgaLed Lo dlsclose LhaL lnformaLlon whlch a reasonable paLlenL would
deem maLerlal ln decldlng wheLher Lo proceed wlLh a proposed LreaLmenL
o PlsLorlcally, courLs used Lhe physlclan sLandard. Powever, modern prevalllng Lrend among courLs ls Lo use Lhe
paLlenL sLandard of maLerlallLy.
o Any deflnlLlon of scope ln Lerms of a professlonal sLandard ls aL odds wlLh Lhe paLlenL's prerogaLlve Lo declde on
pro[ecLed Lherapy hlmself.
o ln order Lo deLermlne whaL rlsks and slde effecLs of a proposed LreaLmenL are maLerlal and should be dlsclosed
Lo Lhe paLlenL, LesLlmony by an experL wlLness ls unnecessary (CanLerbury).
o ur. Ll admlLLed LhaL she assured Lhe spouses LhaL Lhere was an 80b chance LhaL Angellca's cancer would be
conLrolled and LhaL she dlsclosed Lo Lhem only some of Lhe assoclaLed rlsks and slde effecLs of chemoLherapy.
1hus, Dr. L| |mp||ed|y adm|ts that she fa||ed to d|sc|ose many of the other assoc|ated r|sks and s|de effects of
chemotherapy, |nc|ud|ng the most mater|a||nfect|on, seps|s, and death.
o Clearly, lnfecLlon, sepsls, and deaLh are maLerlal rlsks and slde effecLs of chemoLherapy. 1o any reasonable
person, Lhe rlsk of deaLh ls one of Lhe mosL lmporLanL, lf noL Lhe mosL lmporLanL, conslderaLlon ln decldlng
wheLher Lo undergo a proposed LreaLmenL.
o Pad Lhe spouses fully known Lhe severlLy of Lhe rlsks and slde effecLs of chemoLherapy, Lhey may have opLed
noL Lo go Lhrough wlLh Lhe LreaLmenL of Lhelr daughLer. ln facL, afLer some of Lhe slde effecLs of chemoLherapy
manlfesLed, Lhey asked ur. Ll Lo sLop Lhe LreaLmenL.

8r|on, concurr|ng and d|ssent|ng.
o Concurs ln Lhe resulL and lLs concluslon LhaL Lhe respondenLs falled Lo prove by preponderance of evldence Lhe
essenLlal elemenLs of a cause of acLlon based on Lhe docLrlne of lnformed consenL.
o ulsagrees wlLh Lhe ponencla's concluslon LhaL Lhere was adequaLe dlsclosure of maLerlal rlsks of Lhe
chemoLherapy admlnlsLered ln vlew of a compleLe absence of compeLenL experL LesLlmony esLabllshlng a
medlcal dlsclosure sLandard ln Lhe case.
o 8aLher, Lhe concluslon ls based on spouses' fallure Lo prove by compeLenL experL LesLlmony Lhe flrsL and fourLh
elemenLs of a prlma facle case for lack of lnformed consenL, speclflcally:
1) 1he scope of Lhe duLy Lo dlsclose and Lhe vlolaLlon of Lhls duLy (l.e., fallure Lo deflne whaL should be
dlsclosed and Lo dlsclose Lhe requlred maLerlal rlsks or slde effecLs of chemoLherapy LhaL allow Lhe paLlenL
and/or her parenLs Lo properly declde wheLher Lo undergo chemoLherapy
2) 1haL Lhe chemoLherapy admlnlsLered by ur. Ll proxlmaLely caused Lhe deaLh of Angellca Sollman.

Dk. DLNNIS CLkLNC et. a| v. Court of Appea|s September 2012
IAC1S:
AL abouL 9:13 ln Lhe evenlng of 16 SepLember 1993, 8aymond S. Clavere (8aymond), a vlcLlm of a sLabblng lncldenL, was
rushed Lo Lhe emergency room of Lhe 8lcol 8eglonal Medlcal CenLer (88MC). 1here, 8aymond was aLLended Lo by nurse
Arlene 8alares (nurse 8alares) and ur. 8uel Levy 8ealuyo (ur. 8ealuyo) Lhe emergency room resldenL physlclan.
SubsequenLly, Lhe parenLs of 8aymond Lhe spouses ueogenes Clavere (ueogenes) and le 8. Serranoarrlved aL Lhe
88MC. 1hey were accompanled by one Andrew Clavere, Lhe uncle of 8aymond.
AfLer exLendlng lnlLlal medlcal LreaLmenL Lo 8aymond, ur. 8ealuyo recommended LhaL Lhe paLlenL undergo "emetqeocy
explotototy lopototomy." ur. 8ealuyo Lhen requesLed Lhe parenLs of 8aymond Lo procure 300 cc of Lype "C" blood
needed for Lhe operaLlon. Complylng wlLh Lhe requesL, ueogenes and Andrew Clavere wenL Lo Lhe hlllpplne naLlonal
8ed Cross Lo secure Lhe requlred blood. AL 10:30 .M., 8aymond was wheeled lnslde Lhe operaLlng room. uurlng LhaL
Llme, Lhe hosplLal surgeons, urs. Zafe and Cereno, were busy operaLlng on gunshoL vlcLlm Charles Maluluy-on. AsslsLlng
Lhem ln Lhe sald operaLlon was ur. 8osallna 1aLad (ur. 1aLad), who was Lhe only senlor anesLheslologlsL on duLy aL 88MC
LhaL nlghL. ur. 1aLad also happened Lo be Lhe head of AnesLheslology ueparLmenL of Lhe 88MC.
!usL before Lhe operaLlon on Maluluy-on was flnlshed, anoLher emergency case lnvolvlng Lllla Agulla, a woman who was
glvlng blrLh Lo LrlpleLs, was broughL Lo Lhe operaLlng room.
AL 10:39 .M., Lhe operaLlon on Charles Maluluy-on was flnlshed. 8y LhaL Llme, however, ur. 1aLad was already worklng
wlLh Lhe obsLeLrlclans who wlll perform surgery on Lllla Agulla. 1here belng no oLher avallable anesLheslologlsL Lo asslsL
Lhem, urs. Zafe and Cereno declded Lo defer Lhe operaLlon on 8aymond.
urs. Zafe and Cereno, ln Lhe meanLlme, proceeded Lo examlne 8aymond and Lhey found LhaL Lhe laLLers blood pressure
was normal and "noLhlng ln hlm was slgnlflcanL."
3
l,rlxll ur. Cereno reporLed LhaL based on Lhe xray resulL he
lnLerpreLed, Lhe fluld lnslde Lhe Lhoraclc cavlLy of 8aymond was mlnlmal aL around 200-300 cc.
AL 11:13 .M., ueogenes and Andrew Clavere reLurned Lo Lhe 88MC wlLh a bag conLalnlng Lhe requesLed 300 cc Lype
"C" blood. 1hey handed over Lhe bag of blood Lo ur. 8ealuyo. AfLer ur. 1aLad flnlshed her work wlLh Lhe Lllla Agulla
operaLlon, peLlLloners lmmedlaLely sLarLed Lhelr operaLlon on 8aymond aL around 12:13 A.M. of 17 SepLember 1993.
Upon open|ng of kaymonds thorac|c cav|ty, they found that 3,200 cc of b|ood was stocked there|n. 1he blood was
evacuaLed and peLlLloners found a puncLure aL Lhe lnferlor pole of Lhe lefL lung.
ln hls LesLlmony, ur. Cereno sLaLed LhaL conslderlng Lhe loss of blood suffered by 8aymond, he dld noL lmmedlaLely
Lransfuse blood because he had Lo conLrol Lhe bleeders flrsL.
4
l,rlxll
8lood was flnally Lransfused on 8aymond aL 1:40 A.M. AL 1:43 A.M., whlle Lhe operaLlon was on-golng, kaymond
suffered a card|ac arrest. 1he operaLlon ended aL 1:30 A.M. and 8aymond was pronounced dead aL 2:30 A.M. 8aymonds
deaLh cerLlflcaLe
3
l,rlxll lndlcaLed LhaL Lhe lmmedlaLe cause of deaLh was "bypovolemlc sbock" or Lhe cessaLlon of Lhe
funcLlons of Lhe organs of Lhe body due Lo loss of blood.
6
l,rlxll
Clalmlng LhaL Lhere was neg||gence on the part of those who attended to the|r son, the parents of kaymond, on 2S
Cctober 199S, f||ed before the k1C, 8ranch 22, Naga C|ty a comp|a|nt for damages
7
I,rlxll agalnsL nurse 8alares, ur.
8ealuyo and aLLendlng surgeons ur. Cereno and ur. Zafe.
uurlng Lrlal, Lhe parenLs of 8aymond LesLlfled on Lhelr own behalf. 1hey also presenLed Lhe LesLlmonles of Andrew
Clavere and one Lolra Clra, Lhe aunL of 8aymond. Cn Lhe oLher hand, ur. Cereno, ur. 8ealuyo, nurse 8alares and
SecurlLy Cuard ulego 8eposo LesLlfled for Lhe defense. Cn rebuLLal, Lhe parenLs of 8aymond presenLed ur. 1aLad, among
oLhers. 1he Lrlal courL found peLlLloners negllgenL ln noL lmmedlaLely conducLlng surgery on 8aymond. lL noLed LhaL
peLlLloners have already flnlshed operaLlng on Charles Maluluy-on as early as 10:30 ln Lhe evenlng, and yeL Lhey only
sLarLed Lhe operaLlon on 8aymond aL around 12:13 early mornlng of Lhe followlng day. 1he Lrlal courL held LhaL had Lhe
surgery been performed prompLly, 8aymond would noL have losL so much blood and, Lherefore, could have been
saved.
10
l,rlxll
1he Lrlal courL also held LhaL Lhe non-avallablllLy of ur. 1aLad afLer Lhe operaLlon on Maluluy-on was noL a sufflclenL
excuse for Lhe peLlLloners Lo noL lmmedlaLely operaLe on 8aymond. lL called aLLenLlon Lo Lhe LesLlmony of ur. 1aLad
herself, whlch dlsclosed Lhe posslblllLy of calllng a sLandby anesLheslologlsL ln LhaL slLuaLlon. 1he Lrlal courL oplned LhaL
Lhe peLlLloners could have [usL requesLed for Lhe sLandby anesLheslologlsL from ur. 1aLad, buL Lhey dld noL.
LasLly, Lhe Lrlal courL faulLed peLlLloners for Lhe delay ln Lhe Lransfuslon of blood on 8aymond. CA afflrmed 81C declslon

ISSUL: WCn L1l1lCnL8S WL8L C8CSSL? nLCLlCLn1 ln 1PL L8lC8MAnCL Cl 1PLl8 uu1lLS?
nLLD: NC1 NLGLIGLN1
1he Lype of lawsulL whlch has been called medlcal malpracLlce or, more approprlaLely, medlcal negllgence, ls LhaL Lype
of clalm whlch a vlcLlm has avallable Lo hlm or her Lo redress a wrong commlLLed by a medlcal professlonal whlch has
caused bodlly harm. ln order Lo successfully pursue such a clalm, a paLlenL musL prove that a hea|th care prov|der, |n
most cases a phys|c|an, e|ther fa||ed to do someth|ng wh|ch a reasonab|y prudent hea|th care prov|der wou|d have
done, or that he or she d|d someth|ng that a reasonab|y prudent prov|der wou|d not have done, and LhaL Lhe fa||ure or
act|on caused |n[ury to the pat|ent.
13
l,rlxll SLaLed oLherwlse, Lhe complalnanL musL prove: (1) LhaL Lhe healLh care
provlder, elLher by hls acL or omlsslon, had been negllgenL, and (2) LhaL such acL or omlsslon proxlmaLely caused Lhe
ln[ury complalned of.
1he besL way Lo prove Lhese ls Lhrough Lhe oplnlons of experL wlLnesses belonglng ln Lhe same nelghborhood and ln Lhe
same general llne of pracLlce as defendanL physlclan or surgeon. 1he deference of courLs Lo Lhe experL oplnlon of
quallfled physlclans sLems from Lhe formers reallzaLlon LhaL Lhe laLLer possess unusual Lechnlcal skllls whlch laymen ln
mosL lnsLances are lncapable of lnLelllgenLly evaluaLlng, hence, Lhe lndlspensablllLy of experL LesLlmonles.

1here ls noLhlng ln Lhe LesLlmony of ur. 1aLad, or ln any evldence on Lhe record for LhaL maLLer, whlch shows LhaL Lhe
pet|t|oners were aware of the "!"#$ &'()(*(+" that the hosp|ta| keeps a standby anesthes|o|og|st ava||ab|e on ca||.
lndeed, oLher Lhan Lhe LesLlmony of ur. 1aLad, Lhere ls no evldence LhaL proves that any such "!"#$ &'()(*(+" |s be|ng
pract|ced by the hosp|ta|s surgeons at a||.
Lvldence Lo Lhe effecL LhaL peLlLloners knew of Lhe "8kMc ptotocol" ls essenLlal, especlally ln vlew of Lhe conLrary
asserLlon of Lhe peLlLloners LhaL Lhe maLLer of asslgnlng anesLheslologlsLs resLs wlLhln Lhe full dlscreLlon of Lhe 88MC
AnesLheslology ueparLmenL. WlLhouL any prlor knowledge of Lhe "8kMc ptotocol," We f|nd that |t |s qu|te reasonab|e
for the pet|t|oners to assume that matters regard|ng the adm|n|strat|on of anesthes|a and the ass|gnment of
anesthes|o|og|sts are concerns of the Anesthes|o|ogy Department, wh||e matters perta|n|ng to the surgery |tse|f fa||
under the concern of the surgeons. CerLalnly, We cannot ho|d pet|t|oners accountab|e for not comp|y|ng w|th
someth|ng that they, |n the f|rst p|ace, do not know.
5ecooJ. Lven assumlng ex qtotlo otqomeotl LhaL Lhere ls such "8kMc ptotocol" and LhaL peLlLloners knew abouL lL, We
f|nd that the|r fa||ure to request for the ass|stance of the standby anesthes|o|og|st to be reasonab|e when taken |n the
proper context. 1here ls slmply no compeLenL evldence Lo Lhe conLrary.
lrom Lhe LesLlmony of ur. 1aLad herself, lL ls clear LhaL Lhe maLLer of requesLlng for a sLandby anaesLheslologlsL ls noL
wlLhln Lhe full dlscreLlon of peLlLloners. 1he "8kMc ptotocol" descrlbed ln Lhe LesLlmony requlres Lhe peLlLloners Lo
course such requesL Lo Dr. 1atad who, as head of the Department of Anesthes|o|ogy, has the f|na| say of ca|||ng the
standby anesthes|o|og|st.
As revealed by Lhe facLs, however, afLer Lhe Maluluy-on operaLlon, ur. 1aLad was olteoJy asslsLlng ln Lhe Lllla Agulla
operaLlon. urs. Zafe and Cereno Lhen proceeded Lo examlne 8aymond and Lhey found LhaL Lhe laLLers blood pressure
was normal and "noLhlng ln hlm was slgnlflcanL."
17
l,rlxll ur. Cereno even concluded LhaL based on Lhe x-ray resulL he
lnLerpreLed, Lhe fluld lnslde Lhe Lhoraclc cavlLy of 8aymond was mlnlmal aL around 200-300 cc. Such f|nd|ngs of Drs.
Cereno and 2afe were never cha||enged and were unrebutted.
Clven LhaL ur. 1aLad was already engaged ln anoLher urgenL operaLlon and LhaL 8aymond was noL showlng any sympLom
of sufferlng from ma[or blood loss requlrlng an lmmedlaLe operaLlon, We f|nd |t reasonab|e that pet|t|oners dec|ded to
wa|t for Dr. 1atad to f|n|sh her surgery and not to ca|| the standby anesthes|o|og|st anymore. 1here |s, after a||, no
ev|dence that shows that a prudent surgeon faced w|th s|m||ar c|rcumstances wou|d dec|de otherw|se.
Pere, Lhere were no experL wlLnesses presenLed Lo LesLlfy LhaL Lhe course of acLlon Laken by peLlLloners were noL ln
accord wlLh Lhose adopLed by oLher reasonable surgeons ln slmllar slLuaLlons. Ne|ther was there any test|mony g|ven,
except that of Dr. 1atads, on wh|ch |t may be |nferred that pet|t|oners fa||ed to exerc|se the standard of care,
d|||gence, |earn|ng and sk||| expected from pract|t|oners of the|r profess|on. ur. 1aLad, however, ls an experL nelLher ln
Lhe fleld of surgery nor of surglcal pracLlces and dlagnoses. ner expert|se |s |n the adm|n|strat|on of anesthes|a and not
|n the determ|nat|on of whether surgery ought or not ought to be performed.

lrom Lhe aforesald LesLlmony, Lhe Lrlal courL ruled LhaL Lhere was negllgence on Lhe parL of peLlLloners for Lhelr fallure
Lo have Lhe blood ready for Lransfuslon. lL was alleged LhaL aL 11:13 .M., Lhe 300 cc of blood was glven Lo ur. 8ealuyo
by 8aymonds parenLs. AL 11:43 .M., when ur. 1aLad was asklng for Lhe blood, 30 mlnuLes had passed. ?eL, Lhe blood
was noL ready for Lransfuslon as lL was sLlll belng cross-maLched.
19
l,rlxll lL Look anoLher Lwo hours before blood was
flnally Lransfused Lo 8aymond aL 1:40 A.M. of 17 SepLember 1993.
Agaln, such ls a mlsLaken concluslon.
lltst, Lhe a||eged de|ay |n the cross-match|ng of the b|ood, |f there was any, cannot be attr|buted as the fau|t of the
pet|t|oners. 1he pet|t|oners were never shown to be respons|b|e for such de|ay. lL ls hlghly unreasonable and Lhe
helghL of ln[usLlce lf peLlLloners were Lo be sancLloned for lapses ln procedure LhaL does noL fall wlLhln Lhelr duLles and
beyond Lhelr conLrol.
5ecooJ, ur. Cereno, ln hls unchallenged LesLlmony, apLly explalned Lhe apparenL delay ln Lhe Lransfuslon of blood on
8aymond before and durlng Lhe operaLlon.
8efore Lhe operaLlon, ur. Cereno explalned LhaL Lhe reason why no blood Lransfuslon was made on 8aymond was
because Lhey dld noL Lhen see Lhe need Lo admlnlsLer such Lransfuslon, vlz:chanroblesvlrLuallawllbrary
C: now, you sLaLed ln your affldavlL LhaL prlor Lo Lhe operaLlon you were lnformed LhaL Lhere was 300 cc of blood
avallable and was sLlll Lo be cross-maLched. WhaL Llme was LhaL when you were lnformed LhaL 300 cc of blood was due
for crossmaLchlng?
A: l am noL sure of Lhe Llme.
C: 8uL cerLalnly, you learned of LhaL facL LhaL Lhere was 300 cc of blood, whlch was due for crossmaLchlng lmmedlaLely
prlor Lo Lhe operaLlon?
A: ?es, slr.
C: And Lhe operaLlon was done aL 12:13 of SepLember 17?
A: ?es, slr.
C: And LhaL was Lhe reason why you could noL use Lhe blood because lL was belng crossmaLched?
A: no, slr. 1haL was done only for a few mlnuLes. We dld noL Lransfuse aL LhaL Llme because Lhere was no need. 1here |s
a necess|ty to transfuse b|ood when we saw there |s gross b|eed|ng |ns|de the body.
20
l,rlxll (mpbosls sopplleJ)
uurlng Lhe operaLlon, on Lhe oLher hand, ur. Cereno was already able Lo dlscover LhaL 3,200 cc of blood was sLocked ln
Lhe Lhoraclc cavlLy of 8aymond due Lo Lhe puncLure ln Lhe laLLers lefL lung. Lven Lhen, however, lmmedlaLe blood
Lransfuslon was noL feaslble because:chanroblesvlrLuallawllbrary
C: now conslderlng Lhe loss of blood suffered by 8aymund Clavere, why dld you noL lmmedlaLely Lransfuse blood Lo Lhe
paLlenL and you walLed for 43 mlnuLes Lo elapse before Lransfuslng Lhe blood?
A: I d|d not transfuse b|ood because I had to contro| the b|eeders. If you w||| transfuse b|ood [ust the same the b|ood
that you transfuse w||| be |ost. After evacuat|on of b|ood and there |s no more b|eed|ng
C: lL Look you 43 mlnuLes Lo evacuaLe Lhe blood?
A: 1he evacuaLlon dld noL Lake 43 mlnuLes.
C: So whaL was Lhe cause of Lhe delay why you only Lransfuse blood afLer 43 mlnuLes?
A: We have to |ook for some other |es|ons. It does not mean that when you s||ce the chest you w||| see the |es|ons
a|ready.
21
l,rlxll
(mpbosls sopplleJ)
Agaln, Lhe foregolng LesLlmonles of ur. Cereno wenL unchallenged or unrebuLLed. 1he parents of kaymond were not
ab|e to present any expert w|tness to d|spute the course of act|on taken by the pet|t|oners.
coosotloo Not ltoveo
ln medlcal negllgence cases, lL ls seLLled LhaL the comp|a|nant has the burden of estab||sh|ng breach of duty on the part
of the doctors or surgeons. It must be proven that such breach of duty has a causa| connect|on to the resu|t|ng death
of the pat|ent.
22
l,rlxll A verdlcL ln malpracLlce acLlon cannoL be based on speculaLlon or con[ecLure. CausaLlon musL be
proven wlLhln a reasonable medlcal probablllLy based upon compeLenL experL LesLlmony.
1he parenLs of 8aymond falled ln Lhls respecL. As|de from the|r fa||ure to prove neg||gence on the part of the
pet|t|oners, they a|so fa||ed to prove that |t was pet|t|oners fau|t that caused the |n[ury. 1helr cause sLands on Lhe
mere assumpLlon LhaL 8aymonds llfe would have been saved had peLlLloner surgeons lmmedlaLely operaLed on hlm, had
Lhe blood been cross-maLched lmmedlaLely and had Lhe blood been Lransfused lmmedlaLely. 1here was, however, no
proof presented that kaymonds ||fe wou|d have been saved had those th|ngs been done. 1hose are mere assumpLlons
and cannoL guaranLee Lhelr deslred resulL. Such cannoL be made basls of a declslon ln Lhls case, especlally conslderlng
LhaL Lhe name, repuLaLlon and career of peLlLloners are aL sLake.
1he CourL undersLands Lhe parenLs grlef over Lhelr sons deaLh. 1haL noLwlLhsLandlng, lL cannoL hold peLlLloners llable. lL
was noted that kaymond, who was a v|ct|m of a stabb|ng |nc|dent, had mu|t|p|e wounds when brought to the
hosp|ta|. Upon open|ng of h|s thorac|c cav|ty, |t was d|scovered that there was gross b|eed|ng |ns|de the body. 1hus,
the need for pet|t|oners to contro| f|rst what was caus|ng the b|eed|ng. uesplLe Lhe slLuaLlon LhaL evenlng l.e.
numerous paLlenLs belng broughL Lo Lhe hosplLal for emergency LreaLmenL conslderlng LhaL lL was Lhe helghL of Lhe
efrancla llesLa, |t was ev|dent that pet|t|oners exerted earnest efforts to save the ||fe of kaymond. lL was [usL
unforLunaLe LhaL Lhe loss of hls llfe was noL prevenLed.
ln Lhe case of ut. ctoz v. cA, lL was held LhaL "[d]ocLors are proLecLed by a speclal law. 1hey are noL guaranLors of care.
1hey do noL even warranL a good resulL. 1hey are noL lnsurers agalnsL mlshaps or unusual consequences. lurLhermore,
Lhey are noL llable for honesL mlsLake of [udgmenL"
23
l,rlxll
1hls CourL afflrms Lhe rullng of Lhe CA LhaL Lhe 88MC ls noL an lndlspenslble parLy. 1he core lssue as agreed upon by Lhe
parLles and sLaLed ln Lhe pre-Lrlal order ls wheLher peLlLloners were negllgenL ln Lhe performance of Lhelr duLles. lL
perLalns Lo acLs/omlsslons of peLlLloners for whlch Lhey could be held llable. 1he cause of acLlon agalnsL peLlLloners may
be prosecuLed fully and Lhe deLermlnaLlon of Lhelr llablllLy may be arrlved aL wlLhouL lmpleadlng Lhe hosplLal where Lhey
are employed. As such, Lhe 88MC cannoL be consldered an lndlspenslble parLy wlLhouL whom no flnal deLermlnaLlon can
be had of an acLlon.
24
l,rlxll
IN 1nL LIGn1 CI 1nL ICkLGCING, Lhe lnsLanL eLlLlon for 8evlew on CerLlorarl ls hereby GkAN1LD. 1he CourL of
Appeals declslon daLed 21 lebruary 2003 ln CA-C.8. Cv no. 63800 ls hereby kLVLkSLD and SL1 ASIDL. no
cosLs.l,rllllll'brlr

Dr. N|nevetch Cruz v. Court of Appea|s
IAC1S

Med|ca| ma|pract|ce su|t - type of clolm wblcb o vlctlm bos ovolloble to blm/bet to teJtess o wtooq commltteJ by o
meJlcol ptofessloool wblcb bos cooseJ boJlly botm, most ofteo btooqbt os o clvll octloo fot Jomoqes ooJet Ncc 2176 ot
o ctlmlool cose ooJet klc J65, wltb wblcb o clvll octloo fot Jomoqes ls lmplleJly lostltoteJ.

Lydla umall was examlned by ur. Cruz who found a myoma [benlgn Lumor] ln her uLerus, and scheduled her for a
hysLerecLomy operaLlon [removal of uLerus] on 23 Mar 1991. 8owena umall de Ccampo accompanled her moLher Lo Lhe
hosplLal a day before Lhe operaLlon, and Lhey spenL Lhe nlghL Lhere. 8owena noLlced LhaL Lhe cllnlc was unLldy, so she
Lrled Lo persuade her moLher noL Lo proceed wlLh Lhe operaLlon. 1he followlng day, 8owena asked ur. Cruz lf Lhe
operaLlon could be posLponed, buL Lydla Lold her daughLer LhaL ur. Cruz sald LhaL Lhe operaLlon musL go on as
scheduled.
Whlle Lydla's relaLlves were walLlng, ur. Lrclllo (anesLheslologlsL) Lold Lhem Lo buy LagameL ampules, and 8owena's
slsLer wenL ouL Lo buy some. An hour laLer, ur. Lrclllo asked Lhem Lo buy blood for Lydla, so Lhey dld. A few hours laLer,
Lhe operaLlon was flnlshed, buL laLer, ur. Cruz asked Lhe famlly Lo buy addlLlonal blood, buL Lhere was no more Lype A
blood avallable ln Lhe blood bank. A person arrlved Lo donaLe blood whlch was laLer Lransfused Lo Lydla. 8owena noLlced
LhaL her moLher was gasplng for breaLh--apparenLly, Lhe oxygen supply had run ouL, so Lhe famlly wenL ouL Lo buy
oxygen. LaLer ln Lhe evenlng, she wenL lnLo shock and her blood pressure dropped. She was Lhen Lransferred Lo anoLher
hosplLal so she could be connecLed Lo a resplraLor and furLher examlned. Powever, Lhls Lransfer was wlLhouL Lhe
consenL of Lhe relaLlves, who only found ouL abouL lL when an ambulance came Lo Lake Lydla Lo Lhe oLher hosplLal.
ln Lhe new hosplLal, she was re-operaLed upon by ur. Cruz and ur. Lrclllo because blood was oozlng ouL from her
lnclslon. 1hey summoned ur. Angeles, Cb-Cyne head of Lhe new hosplLal, buL when he arrlved, Lydla was already ln
shock and posslbly dead (8: 0/0). ur. Angeles Lold urs. Cruz and Lrclllo LhaL Lhere was noLhlng he could do. Lydla dled
whlle ur. Cruz was closlng her abdomlnal wall. lmmedlaLe cause of deaLh ls shock, dlssemlnaLed lnLravascular
coagulaLlon (ulC) as anLecedenL cause.
ur. Cruz and ur. Lrclllo were charged wlLh reckless lmprudence and negllgence resulLlng ln homlclde of Lydla umall. 1he
Munlclpal 1rlal CourL ln ClLles (M1CC) found ur. Lrclllo noL gullLy for lnsufflclency of evldence agalnsL her, buL held ur.
Cruz responslble for umall's deaLh. 81C and CA afflrmed M1CC.

ManlfesLaLlon of negllgence
-unLldlness of cllnlc
- lack of provlslon of supplles
- Lhe facL LhaL Lhe Lransfer was needed meanL LhaL Lhere was someLhlng wrong ln Lhe way ur. Cruz conducLed operaLlon
- no showlng LhaL pre-surgery procedure (clearance, blood Lyplng/LesLs) was conducLed
ISSUL :WCn Lhe clrcumsLances are sufflclenL Lo susLaln a [udgmenL of convlcLlon agalnsL ur. Cruz for reckless
lmprudence resulLlng ln homlclde. NC. Dk. CkU2 IS ACUI11LD, 8U1 SnL IS S1ILL CIVILL LIA8LL (30k clvll llablllLy, 100k
moral damages, 30k exemplary damages).


kA1IC
LlemenLs of reckless lmprudence
1. Cffender does / falls Lo do an acL
2. uolng / fallure Lo do acL ls volunLary
3. WlLhouL mallce
4. MaLerlal damage resulLs from reckless lmprudence
3. 1here ls lnexcusable lack of precauLlon, Laklng lnLo conslderaLlon offender's employmenL, degree of lnLelllgence,
physlcal condlLlon, oLher clrcumsLances re: persons, Llme, place

Standard of care
SLandard of care observed by oLher members of Lhe professlon ln good sLandlng under slmllar clrcumsLances, bearlng ln
mlnd Lhe advanced sLaLe of Lhe professlon aL Lhe Llme of LreaLmenL or Lhe presenL sLaLe of medlcal sclence
When Lhe physlclan's quallflcaLlons are admlLLed, Lhere ls an lnevlLable presumpLlon LhaL ln proper cases, he Lakes
Lhe necessary precauLlon and employs Lhe besL of hls knowledge and sklll ln aLLendlng Lo hls cllenLs, unless Lhe conLrary
ls sufflclenLly esLabllshed by experL LesLlmony.

Lxpert test|mony
LxperL LesLlmony ls essenLlal Lo esLabllsh sLandard of care of Lhe professlon, as well as LhaL Lhe physlclan's conducL ln Lhe
LreaLmenL and care falls below such sLandard. lL ls also usually necessary Lo supporL Lhe concluslon as Lo causaLlon.
1here ls an absence of any experL LesLlmony re: sLandard of care ln Lhe case records. n8l docLors presenLed by Lhe
prosecuLlon only LesLlfled as Lo Lhe posslble cause of deaLh.
Whlle lL may be Lrue LhaL Lhe clrcumsLances polnLed ouL by Lhe lower courLs consLlLuLe reckless lmprudence, Lhls
concluslon ls sLlll besL arrlved noL Lhrough Lhe educaLed surmlses nor con[ecLures of laymen, lncludlng [udges, buL by Lhe
unquesLlonable knowledge of experL wlLnesses. 1he deference of courLs Lo Lhe experL oplnlon of quallfled physlclans
sLems from Lhe reallzaLlon LhaL Lhe laLLer possess unusual Lechnlcal skllls whlch laymen are lncapable of lnLelllgenLly
evaluaLlng.

8urden of estab||sh|ng med|ca| neg||gence on p|a|nt|ff
lalnLlff has Lhe burden Lo esLabllsh Lhls, and for a reasonable concluslon of negllgence, Lhere musL be proof of breach of
duLy on Lhe parL of Lhe surgeon, as well as a causal connecLlon of such breach and Lhe resulLlng deaLh of paLlenL.
negllgence cannoL creaLe a rlghL of acLlon unless lL ls Lhe proxlmaLe cause of Lhe ln[ury complalned of (Chan Lugay v. SL.
Luke's PosplLal, lnc.). ln Lhls case, no cogenL proof exlsLs LhaL Lhe clrcumsLances caused Lydla's deaLh, so Lhe 4Lh elemenL
of reckless lmprudence ls mlsslng.
1he LesLlmonles of Lhe docLors presenLed by Lhe prosecuLlon esLabllsh hemorrhage / hemorrhaglc shock as Lhe cause
of deaLh, whlch may be caused by several dlfferenL facLors. AuLopsy dld noL reveal any unLled cuL blood vessel, nor was
Lhere a Lle of a cuL blood vessel LhaL became loose. 1he flndlngs of Lhe docLors do noL preclude Lhe probablllLy LhaL a
cloLLlng defecL (ulC) caused Lhe hemorrhage and consequenLly, Lydla's deaLh.

1he CourL has no recourse buL Lo rely on Lhe experL LesLlmonles LhaL subsLanLlaLe ur. Cruz' allegaLlon LhaL Lhe cause of
Lydla's deaLh was ulC, whlch cannoL be aLLrlbuLed Lo ur. Cruz' faulL or negllgence. 1hls probablllLy was unrebuLLed
durlng Lrlal.










kamos v CA | kapunan
G.k. No. 1243S4 December 29, 1999|
IAC1S
- Lrllnda 8amos underwenL an operaLlon known as cholecysLecLomy (removal of sLone ln her gallbladder) under Lhe
hands of ur. Crllno Posaka. Pe was accompanled by ur. erfecLa CuLlerrez, an anesLheslologlsL whlch ur. Posaka
recommended slnce 8amos (and her husband 8ogello) dld noL know any.
- 1he operaLlon was schedule aL 9am of !une 17, 1983 buL was however delayed for Lhree hours due Lo Lhe laLe arrlval
of ur. Posaka.
- ur. CuLlerrez subsequenLly sLarLed Lrylng Lo lnLubaLe her. And aL around 3pm, Lrllnda was seen belng wheeled Lo Lhe
lnLenslve Care unlL (lCu). 1he docLors explalned Lo peLlLloner 8ogello LhaL hls wlfe had bronchospasm. Lrllnda sLayed ln
Lhe lCu for a monLh. She was released from Lhe hosplLal only four monLhs laLer or on november 13, 1983. Slnce Lhe lll-
faLed operaLlon, Lrllnda remalned ln comaLose condlLlon unLll she dled on AugusL 3, 1999.
- 81C ruled ln favor of Lhe peLlLloners, holdlng Lhe defendanLs gullLy of, aL Lhe very leasL, negllgence ln Lhe performance
of Lhelr duLy Lo plalnLlff-paLlenL Lrllnda 8amos.
- Cn appeal Lo CA, Lhe sald declslon was reversed - dlsmlsslng Lhe complalnL agalnsL Lhe defendanLs. Pence Lhls
peLlLlon.

ISSULS :W/n Lhe prlvaLe respondenLs should be held llable for Lhe ln[ury caused Lo Lrllnda and her famlly?

nLLD: LS.
- 8es lpsa loqulLur ls a LaLln phrase whlch llLerally means "Lhe Lhlng or Lhe LransacLlon speaks for lLself." 1he phrase "res
lpsa loqulLur'' ls a maxlm for Lhe rule LhaL Lhe facL of Lhe occurrence of an ln[ury, Laken wlLh Lhe surroundlng
clrcumsLances, may permlL an lnference or ralse a presumpLlon of negllgence, or make ouL a plalnLlff's prlma facle case,
and presenL a quesLlon of facL for defendanL Lo meeL wlLh an explanaLlon.
- 1he docLrlne of res lpsa loqulLur ls slmply a recognlLlon of Lhe posLulaLe LhaL, as a maLLer of common knowledge and
experlence, Lhe very naLure of cerLaln Lypes of occurrences may [usLlfy an lnference of negllgence on Lhe parL of Lhe
person who conLrols Lhe lnsLrumenLallLy causlng Lhe ln[ury ln Lhe absence of some explanaLlon by Lhe defendanL who ls
charged wlLh negllgence.
- Powever, much has been sald LhaL res lpsa loqulLur ls noL a rule of subsLanLlve law and, as such, does noL creaLe or
consLlLuLe an lndependenL or separaLe ground of llablllLy. lnsLead, lL ls consldered as merely evldenLlary or ln Lhe naLure
of a procedural rule. lL ls regarded as a mode of proof, or a mere procedural of convenlence slnce lL furnlshes a
subsLlLuLe for, and relleves a plalnLlff of, Lhe burden of produclng speclflc proof of negllgence. Pence, mere lnvocaLlon
and appllcaLlon of Lhe docLrlne does noL dlspense wlLh Lhe requlremenL of proof of negllgence. lL ls slmply a sLep ln Lhe
process of such proof, permlLLlng Lhe plalnLlff Lo presenL along wlLh Lhe proof of Lhe accldenL, enough of Lhe aLLendlng
clrcumsLances Lo lnvoke Lhe docLrlne, creaLlng an lnference or presumpLlon of negllgence, and Lo Lhereby place on Lhe
defendanL Lhe burden of golng forward wlLh Lhe proof. SLlll, before resorL Lo Lhe docLrlne may be allowed, Lhe followlng
requlslLes musL be saLlsfacLorlly shown:
1. 1be occlJeot ls of o kloJ wblcb otJlootlly Joes oot occot lo tbe obseoce of someooe's oeqllqeoce,
2. lt ls cooseJ by oo losttomeotollty wltblo tbe excloslve coottol of tbe JefeoJoot ot JefeoJoots, ooJ
J. 1be posslblllty of coottlbotloq cooJoct wblcb woolJ moke tbe plolotlff tespooslble ls ellmlooteJ.

AlLhough generally, experL medlcal LesLlmony ls relled upon ln malpracLlce sulLs Lo prove LhaL a physlclan has done a
negllgenL acL or LhaL he has devlaLed from Lhe sLandard medlcal procedure, when Lhe docLrlne of res lpsa loqulLur ls
avalled by Lhe plalnLlff, Lhe need for experL medlcal LesLlmony ls dlspensed wlLh because Lhe ln[ury lLself provldes Lhe
proof of negllgence. 1he reason ls LhaL Lhe general rule on Lhe necesslLy of experL LesLlmony applles only Lo such maLLers
clearly wlLhln Lhe domaln of medlcal sclence, and noL Lo maLLers LhaL are wlLhln Lhe common knowledge of manklnd
whlch may be LesLlfled Lo by anyone famlllar wlLh Lhe facLs. When Lhe docLrlne ls approprlaLe, all LhaL Lhe paLlenL musL
do ls prove a nexus beLween Lhe parLlcular acL or omlsslon complalned of and Lhe ln[ury susLalned whlle under Lhe
cusLody and managemenL of Lhe defendanL wlLhouL need Lo produce experL medlcal LesLlmony Lo esLabllsh Lhe sLandard
of care. 8esorL Lo res lpsa loqulLur ls allowed because Lhere ls no oLher way, under usual and ordlnary condlLlons, by
whlch Lhe paLlenL can obLaln redress for ln[ury suffered by hlm.

We f|nd the doctr|ne of res |psa |oqu|tur appropr|ate |n the case at bar. As w||| here|nafter be exp|a|ned, the damage
susta|ned by Lr||nda |n her bra|n pr|or to a schedu|ed ga|| b|adder operat|on presents a case for the app||cat|on of res
|psa |oqu|tur.
ln Lhe presenL case, Lrllnda submlLLed herself for cholecysLecLomy and expecLed a rouLlne general surgery Lo be
performed on her gall bladder. Cn LhaL faLeful day she dellvered her person over Lo Lhe care, cusLody and conLrol of
prlvaLe respondenLs who exerclsed compleLe and excluslve conLrol over her. AL Lhe Llme of submlsslon, Lrllnda was
neurologlcally sound and, excepL for a few mlnor dlscomforLs, was llkewlse physlcally flL ln mlnd and body. Powever,
durlng Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of anesLhesla and prlor Lo Lhe performance of cholecysLecLomy she suffered lrreparable
damage Lo her braln. 1hus, wlLhouL undergolng surgery, she wenL ouL of Lhe operaLlng room already decerebraLe and
LoLally lncapaclLaLed. Cbvlously, braln damage, whlch Lrllnda susLalned, ls an ln[ury whlch does noL normally occur ln
Lhe process of a gall bladder operaLlon. ln facL, Lhls klnd of slLuaLlon does noL ln Lhe absence of negllgence of someone ln
Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of anesLhesla and ln Lhe use of endoLracheal Lube.

normally, a person belng puL under anesLhesla ls noL rendered decerebraLe as a consequence of admlnlsLerlng such
anesLhesla lf Lhe proper procedure was followed. lurLhermore, Lhe lnsLrumenLs used ln Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of
anesLhesla, lncludlng Lhe endoLracheal Lube, were all under Lhe excluslve conLrol of prlvaLe respondenLs, who are Lhe
physlclans-ln-charge. Llkewlse, peLlLloner Lrllnda could noL have been gullLy of conLrlbuLory negllgence because she was
under Lhe lnfluence of anesLheLlcs whlch rendered her unconsclous.

- We dlsagree wlLh Lhe flndlngs of Lhe CourL of Appeals. We hold LhaL prlvaLe respondenLs were unable Lo dlsprove Lhe
presumpLlon of negllgence on Lhelr parL ln Lhe care of Lrllnda and Lhelr negllgence was Lhe proxlmaLe cause of her
plLeous condlLlon.
- ur. CuLlerrez (anesLheslologlsL) ls held llable for fallure Lo perform Lhe necessary pre-operaLlve evaluaLlon whlch
lncludes Laklng Lhe paLlenL's medlcal hlsLory, revlew of currenL drug Lherapy, physlcal examlnaLlon and lnLerpreLaLlon of
laboraLory daLa. 1hls physlcal examlnaLlon performed by Lhe anesLheslologlsL ls dlrecLed prlmarlly Loward Lhe cenLral
nervous sysLem, cardlovascular sysLem, lungs and upper alrway. A Lhorough analysls of Lhe paLlenL's alrway normally
lnvolves lnvesLlgaLlng Lhe followlng: cervlcal splne moblllLy, Lemporomandlbular moblllLy, promlnenL cenLral lnclsors,
dlseased or arLlflclal LeeLh, ablllLy Lo vlsuallze uvula and Lhe LhyromenLal dlsLance.
- ln Lhe case aL bar, respondenL ura. CuLlerrez admlLLed LhaL she saw Lrllnda for Lhe flrsL Llme on Lhe day of Lhe
operaLlon lLself, on 17 !une 1983. 8efore Lhls daLe, no prlor consulLaLlons wlLh, or pre-operaLlve evaluaLlon of Lrllnda
was done by her. unLll Lhe day of Lhe operaLlon, respondenL ura. CuLlerrez was unaware of Lhe physlologlcal make-up
and needs of Lrllnda. She was llkewlse noL properly lnformed of Lhe posslble dlfflculLles she would face durlng Lhe
admlnlsLraLlon of anesLhesla Lo Lrllnda. 8espondenL ura. CuLlerrez' acL of seelng her paLlenL for Lhe flrsL Llme only an
hour before Lhe scheduled operaLlve procedure was, Lherefore, an acL of excepLlonal negllgence and professlonal
lrresponslblllLy. 1he measures cauLlonlng prudence and vlgllance ln deallng wlLh human llves lle aL Lhe core of Lhe
physlclan's cenLurles-old PlppocraLlc CaLh. Per fallure Lo follow Lhls medlcal procedure ls, Lherefore, a clear lndlcla of
her negllgence.

- Pavlng falled Lo observe common medlcal sLandards ln pre-operaLlve managemenL and lnLubaLlon, respondenL ura.
CuLlerrez' negllgence resulLed ln cerebral anoxla and evenLual coma of Lrllnda.
- ur. Posaka, belng Lhe head of Lhe surglcal Leam (capLaln of Lhe shlp"), lL was hls responslblllLy Lo see Lo lL LhaL Lhose
under hlm perform Lhelr Lask ln Lhe proper manner. 8espondenL ur. Posaka's negllgence can be found ln hls fallure Lo
exerclse Lhe proper auLhorlLy (as Lhe "capLaln" of Lhe operaLlve Leam) ln noL deLermlnlng lf hls anesLheslologlsL observed
proper anesLhesla proLocols. ln facL, no evldence on record exlsLs Lo show LhaL respondenL ur. Posaka verlfled lf
respondenL ura. CuLlerrez properly lnLubaLed Lhe paLlenL. lurLhermore, lL does noL escape us LhaL respondenL ur.
Posaka had
scheduled anoLher procedure ln a dlfferenL hosplLal aL Lhe same Llme as Lrllnda's cholecysLecLomy, and was ln facL over
Lhree hours laLe for Lhe laLLer's operaLlon. 8ecause of Lhls, he had llLLle or no Llme Lo confer wlLh hls anesLheslologlsL
regardlng Lhe anesLhesla dellvery. 1hls lndlcaLes LhaL he was remlss ln hls professlonal duLles Lowards hls paLlenL. 1hus,
he shares equal responslblllLy for Lhe evenLs whlch resulLed ln Lrllnda's condlLlon.
- noLwlLhsLandlng Lhe general denlal made by respondenL hosplLal Lo Lhe effecL LhaL Lhe respondenL docLors (referred
Lo as consulLanLs") ln Lhls case are noL Lhelr employees, Lhere ls a showlng LhaL Lhe hosplLal exerclses slgnlflcanL conLrol
ln Lhe hlrlng and flrlng of consulLanLs and ln Lhe conducL of Lhelr work wlLhln Lhe hosplLal premlses.
- 1he basls for holdlng an employer solldarlly responslble for Lhe negllgence of lLs employee ls found ln ArLlcle 2180 of
Lhe Clvll Code whlch conslders a person accounLable noL only for hls own acLs buL also for Lhose of oLhers based on Lhe
former's responslblllLy under a relaLlonshlp of paLrla poLesLas. Such responslblllLy ceases when Lhe persons or enLlLy
concerned prove LhaL Lhey have observed Lhe dlllgence of a good faLher of Lhe famlly Lo prevenL damage. ln oLher
words, whlle Lhe burden of provlng negllgence resLs on Lhe plalnLlffs, once negllgence ls shown, Lhe burden shlfLs Lo Lhe
respondenLs (parenL, guardlan, Leacher or employer) who should prove LhaL Lhey observed Lhe dlllgence of a good
faLher of a famlly Lo prevenL damage.

- ln Lhe lnsLanL case, respondenL hosplLal, aparL from a general denlal of lLs responslblllLy over respondenL physlclans,
falled Lo adduce evldence showlng LhaL lL exerclsed Lhe dlllgence of a good faLher of a famlly ln Lhe hlrlng and
supervlslon of Lhe laLLer. lL falled Lo adduce evldence wlLh regard Lo Lhe degree of supervlslon whlch lL exerclsed over lLs
physlclans. ln neglecLlng Lo offer such proof, or proof of a slmllar naLure, respondenL hosplLal Lhereby falled Lo dlscharge
lLs burden under Lhe lasL paragraph of ArLlcle 2180. Pavlng falled Lo do Lhls, respondenL hosplLal ls consequenLly
solldarlly responslble wlLh lLs physlclans for Lrllnda's condlLlon.

1he CA declslon and resoluLlon are hereby modlfled so as Lo award ln favor of peLlLloners, and solldarlly agalnsL prlvaLe
respondenLs Lhe followlng: 1) 1,332,000.00 as acLual damages compuLed as of Lhe daLe of promulgaLlon of Lhls declslon
plus a monLhly paymenL of 8,000.00 up Lo Lhe Llme LhaL peLlLloner Lrllnda 8amos explres or mlraculously survlves, 2)
2,000,000.00 as moral damages, 3) 1,300,000.00 as LemperaLe damages, 4) 100,000.00 each as exemplary damages
and aLLorney's fees, and, 3) Lhe cosLs of Lhe sulL.


Noga|es v. Cap|to| Med|ca| Center G.k. No. 14262S December 19, 2006
Iacts:
Corazon nogales, 37, was under excluslve prenaLal care of ur. Cscar LsLrada wlLh her fourLh chlld. An lncrease ln her
blood pressure and developmenL of leg edema lndlcaLlng preeclampsla was noLed durlng her lasL LrlmesLer of
pregnancy, a dangerous compllcaLlon of her pregnancy. Cn 26 May 1976,Corazon was admlLLed Lo CMC afLer Lhe sLaff
nurse noLed Lhe wrlLLen admlsslon requesL forur. LsLrada. 8ogello execuLed and slgned Lhe ConsenL Admlsslon and
AgreemenL" and Admlsslon AgreemenL". uurlng Lhe operaLlon, ur. LsLrada was asslsLed by docLors of CMC. 1he baby
came ouL ln an apnlc, cyanoLlc, weak and ln[ured condlLlon and had Lo be lncubaLed and resusclLaLed by urs. Lnrlquez
and ayumo. Corazon's blood pressure dropped, she had conLlnuous vaglnal bleedlng, was admlnlsLered hemacel and
undergone lmmedlaLe hysLerecLomy. LvenLually, she dled aL 9:13 a.m. wlLh hemorrhage, posL parLum". Pence, a
complalnL for damages was flled. lor fallure Lo answer, Lrlal ensued. CA upheld Lhe Lrlal courL's rullng.
Issue:
WheLher or noL CMC ls vlcarlously llable for Lhe negllgence of ur. LsLrada under ArL.2180 ln relaLlon Lo ArL. 2176 of Lhe
Clvll Code.
ku||ng:
under Lhe conLrol LesL, an employer-employee relaLlonshlp beLween hosplLals and Lhelr aLLendlng and vlslLlng physlclans
musL exlsLln allocaLlng responslblllLy ln medlcal negllgence cases. 1he CourL flnds no slngle evldence polnLlng Lo CMC's
exerclse of conLrol over ur.LsLrada's LreaLmenL and managemenL of Corazon's condlLlon. lL ls undlspuLed LhaL
LhroughouL Corazon's pregnancy, she was under Lhe excluslve prenaLal care of ur. LsLrada. AL Lhe Llme of Corazon's
admlsslon aL CMC and durlng her dellvery, lL was ur. LsLrada, asslsLed by ur.vlllaflor, who aLLended Lo Corazon. 1here
was no showlng LhaL CMC had a parL ln dlagnoslng Corazon's condlLlon. Whlle ur. LsLrada en[oyed sLaff prlvlleges aL
CMC, such facL alone dld noL make hlm an employee of CMC. CMC merely allowed ur. LsLrada Lo use lLs faclllLles

When Corazon was abouL Lo glve blrLh, whlch CMC consldered an emergency. Conslderlng Lhese clrcumsLances, ur.
LsLrada ls noL an employeeof CMC, buL an lndependenL conLracLor .ln general, a hosplLal ls noL llable for Lhe negllgence
of an lndependenL conLracLor-physlclan excepL under Lhe doctr|ne of apparent author|ty". ln Lhe lnsLanL case, CMC
lmplledly held ouL ur. LsLrada as a member of lLs medlcal sLaff. 1hrough CMC's acLs, CMC cloLhed ur.LsLrada wlLh
apparenL auLhorlLy Lhereby leadlng Lhe Spouses nogales Lo belleve LhaL ur. LsLrada was an employee or agenL of CMC.
CMC cannoL now repudlaLe such auLhorlLy. CMC ls llable for damages. ur. LsLrada dld noL appeal Lhe flndlngs of CA,
renderlng hlm solely llable for damages.
[Note: * Doctr|ne of Apparent Author|ty

: a hosplLal can be held vlcarlously llable for Lhe negllgenL acLs of a physlclan provldlng care aL Lhe hosplLal, regardless of
wheLher Lhe physlclan ls an lndependenL conLracLor, unless Lhe paLlenL knows, or should have known, LhaL Lhe physlclan
ls an lndependenL conLracLor. 1he elemenLs of Lhe acLlon have been seL ouL as follows:" lor a hosplLal Lo be llable under
Lhe docLrlne of apparenL auLhorlLy, a plalnLlff musL show LhaL:(1) Lhe hosplLal, or lLs agenL, acLed ln a manner LhaL would
lead a reasonable person Lo conclude LhaL Lhe lndlvldual who was alleged Lo be negllgenL was an employee or agenL of
Lhe hosplLal, (2) where Lhe acLs of Lhe agenL creaLe Lhe appearance of auLhorlLy, Lhe plalnLlff musL also prove LhaL Lhe
hosplLal had knowledge of and acqulesced ln Lhem, and (3) Lhe plalnLlff acLed ln rellance upon Lhe conducL of Lhe
hosplLal or lLs agenL, conslsLenL wlLh ordlnary care and prudence." 1he elemenL of "holdlng ouL" on Lhe parL of Lhe
hosplLal does noL requlre an express represenLaLlon by Lhe hosplLal LhaL Lhe person alleged Lo be negllgenL ls an
employee. 8aLher, Lhe elemenL ls saLlsfled lf Lhe hosplLal holds lLself ouL as a provlder of emergency room care wlLhouL
lnformlng Lhe paLlenL LhaL Lhe care ls provlded by lndependenL conLracLors. 1he elemenL of [usLlflable rellance on Lhe
parL of Lhe plalnLlff ls saLlsfled lf Lhe plalnLlff relles upon Lhe hosplLal Lo provlde compleLe emergency room care, raLher
Lhan upon a speclflc physlclan.

kCILSSICNAL SLkVICLS v. AGANA

IAC1S
naLlvldad Agana was rushed Lo Medlcal ClLy because of dlfflculLy of bowel movemenL and bloody anal dlscharge. ur.
Ampll dlagnosed her Lo be sufferlng from cancer of the s|gmo|d. ur. Ampll performed an anter|or resect|on surgery on
her, and flndlng LhaL Lhe mallgnancy spread on her lefL ovary, he obLalned Lhe consenL of her husband, Lnrlque, Lo
permlL ur. luenLes Lo perform hysterectomy on her. AfLer Lhe hysLerecLomy, ur. luenLes showed hls work Lo ur. Ampll,
who examlned lL and found lL ln order, so he allowed ur. luenLes Lo leave Lhe operaLlng room. ur. Ampll was abouL Lo
compleLe Lhe procedure when Lhe aLLendlng nurses made some remarks on Lhe 8ecord of CperaLlon: ",&(-./ *(0-)
+1*23-. 45 1--(0-*/6 )( ,0'./(- ,/1'*7 6(-/ 80) )( -( 1913+ *(-)3-0/ :(' *+(,0'/" (Lwo pleces of gauze were mlsslng).
A "dlllgenL search" was conducLed buL Lhey could noL be found. ur. Ampll Lhen dlrecLed LhaL Lhe lnclslon be closed.
A couple of days afLer, she complalned of paln ln her anal reglon, buL Lhe docLors Lold her LhaL lL was [usL a naLural
consequence of Lhe surgery. ur. Ampll recommended LhaL she consulL an oncologlsL Lo examlne Lhe cancerous nodes
whlch were noL removed durlng Lhe operaLlon. AfLer monLhs of consulLaLlons and examlnaLlons ln Lhe uS, she was Lold
LhaL she was free of cancer. Weeks afLer comlng back, her daughLer found a plece of gauze (1.3 ln) proLrudlng from her
vaglna, so ur. Ampll manually exLracLed Lhls, assurlng naLlvldad LhaL Lhe palns wlll go away. Powever, Lhe paln
worsened, so she soughL LreaLmenL aL a hosplLal, where anoLher 1.3 ln plece of gauze was found ln her vaglna. She
underwenL anoLher surgery.
Sps. Agana flled a comp|a|nt for damages agalnsL Sl (owner of Medlcal ClLy), ur. Ampll, and ur. luenLes, alleglng
LhaL Lhe laLLer are llable for neg||gence for leavlng 2 pleces of gauze ln naLlvldad's body, and ma|pract|ce for conceallng
Lhelr acLs of negllgence. Lnrlque Agana also flled an adm|n|strat|ve comp|a|nt for gross negllgence and malpracLlce
agalnsL Lhe Lwo docLors wlLh Lhe 8C (alLhough only Lhe case agalnsL ur. luenLes was heard slnce ur. Ampll was abroad).
endlng Lhe ouLcome of Lhe cases, Nat|v|dad d|ed (now subsLlLuLed by her chlldren). k1C found SI and the two doctors
||ab|e for neg||gence and ma|pract|ce. kC d|sm|ssed the case aga|nst Dr. Iuentes. CA d|sm|ssed on|y the case aga|nst
Iuentes.

ISSUL AND nCLDING
1. WCn CA erred ln holdlng ur. Ampll llable for negllgence and malpracLlce. NC, Dk. AMIL IS GUIL1
2. WCn CA erred ln absolvlng ur. luenLes of any llablllLy. NC
3. WCn Sl may be held solldarlly llable for ur. Ampll's negllgence. LS
kA1IC
;"< =#>?@ ?A @?=!@B CD" EBF@?FBE$B =E; #=@>"=$G?$B
Pls argumenLs are wlLhouL basls [dld noL prove LhaL Lhe Amerlcan docLors were Lhe ones who puL / lefL Lhe gauzes, dld
noL submlL evldence Lo rebuL Lhe correcLness of Lhe operaLlon record (re: number of gauzes used), re: ur. luenLes'
alleged negllgence, ur. Ampll examlned hls work and found lL ln order].
Leav|ng fore|gn substances |n the wound after |nc|s|on has been c|osed |s at |east &'3H1 :1*3/ neg||gence by the
operat|ng surgeon. Lven lf lL has been shown LhaL a surgeon was requlred Lo leave a sponge ln hls paLlenL's abdomen
because of Lhe dangers aLLendanL upon delay, sLlll, lL ls hls leqol Joty to lofotm bls potleot wltblo o teosoooble tlme by
oJvlsloq bet of wbot be boJ beeo compelleJ to Jo, so she can seek rellef from Lhe effecLs of Lhe forelgn ob[ecL lefL ln her
body as her condlLlon mlghL permlL. WhaL's worse ln Lhls case ls LhaL he mlsled her by saylng LhaL Lhe paln was an
ordlnary consequence of her operaLlon.

#/63*1+ -/.+3./-*/5 ,)1-61'6 (: 63+3./-*/
1o successfully pursue Lhls case of medlcal negllgence, a paLlenL musL only prove LhaL a healLh care provlder elLher falled
Lo do someLhlng [or dld someLhlng] whlch a reasonably prudenL healLh care provlder would have done [or wouldn'L have
done], and LhaL Lhe fallure or acLlon caused ln[ury Lo Lhe paLlenL.
- uoty - Lo remove all forelgn ob[ecLs from Lhe body before closure of Lhe lnclslon, lf he falls Lo do so, lL was hls duLy Lo
lnform Lhe paLlenL abouL lL
- 8teocb - falled Lo remove forelgn ob[ecLs, falled Lo lnform paLlenL
- lojoty - suffered paln LhaL necesslLaLed examlnaLlon and anoLher surgery
- ltoxlmote coosotloo - breach caused Lhls ln[ury, could be Lraced from hls acL of closlng Lhe lnclslon desplLe
lnformaLlon glven by Lhe aLLendanL nurses LhaL 2 pleces of gauze were sLlll mlsslng, whaL esLabllshed causal
llnk: gauze pleces laLer exLracLed from paLlenL's vaglna
;"< CIBEGBA EDG @?=!@B
1he tes lpso lopoltot [Lhlng speaks for lLself] argumenL of Lhe Aganas' does noL convlnce Lhe courL. Mere lnvocaLlon and
appllcaLlon of Lhls docLrlne does noL dlspense wlLh Lhe requlremenL of proof of negllgence.

kequ|s|tes for the app||cab|||ty of '/, 3&,1 +(J03)0'
1. Cccurrence of ln[ury
2. 1hlng whlch caused ln[ury was under Lhe contro| and management of the defendant [Dk. IULN1LS] -- lAcklNC
5lNc c1kl-MC1 wA5 wl1n uk. AMlll
3. Cccurrence was such LhaL ln Lhe ordlnary course of Lhlngs, would noL have happened lf Lhose who had conLrol or
managemenL used proper care
4. Absence of explanaLlon by defendanL
under Lhe $1&)13- (: )7/ A73& rule, Lhe operaLlng surgeon ls Lhe person ln compleLe charge of Lhe surgery room and all
personnel connecLed wlLh Lhe operaLlon. 1haL ur. Ampll dlscharged such role ls evldenL from Lhe followlng:
- Pe called ur. luenLes Lo perform a hysLerecLomy
- Pe examlned ur. luenLes' work and found lL ln order
- Pe granLed ur. luenLes permlsslon Lo leave
- Pe ordered Lhe closure of Lhe lnclslon
KDA>?G=@ DLEB" >A? AD@?;="?@M @?=!@B L?GK ;"< =#>?@ NE$$ 4OPQRS =E; ;?"B$G@M @?=!@B GD A>A< =F=E=A NE$$
4OTUR
revlously, employers cannoL be held llable for Lhe faulL or negllgence of lLs professlonals. Powever, Lhls docLrlne has
weakened slnce courLs came Lo reallze LhaL modern hosplLals are Laklng a more acLlve role ln supplylng and regulaLlng
medlcal care Lo lLs paLlenLs, by employlng sLaff of physlclans, among oLhers. Pence, Lhere ls no reason Lo exempL
hosplLals from Lhe unlversal rule of tespooJeot sopetlot. Pere are Lhe CourL's bases for susLalnlng Sl's llablllLy:
- komos v. cA docLrlne on L-L relaLlonshlp
- lor purposes of apporLlonlng responslblllLy ln medlcal negllgence cases, an employer-employee
relaLlonshlp ln effecL exlsLs beLween hosplLals and Lhelr aLLendlng and vlslLlng physlclans. [LA8C8
LLSSCn: power Lo hlre, flre, power of conLrol]
- Agency prlnclple of apparenL auLhorlLy / agency by esLoppel
- lmposes llablllLy because of Lhe acLlons of a prlnclpal or employer ln somehow mlsleadlng Lhe publlc lnLo
bellevlng LhaL Lhe relaLlonshlp or Lhe auLhorlLy exlsLs [see nCC 1869]
- Sl publlcly dlsplays ln Lhe Medlcal ClLy lobby Lhe names and speclallzaLlons of Lhelr physlclans. Pence, Sl ls
now esLopped from passlng all Lhe blame Lo Lhe physlclans whose names lL proudly paraded ln Lhe
publlc dlrecLory, leadlng Lhe publlc Lo belleve LhaL lL vouched for Lhelr sklll and compeLence.
- lf docLors do well, hosplLal proflLs flnanclally, so when negllgence mars Lhe quallLy of lLs servlces, Lhe
hosplLal should noL be allowed Lo escape llablllLy for lLs agenLs' acLs.
- uocLrlne of corporaLe negllgence / corporaLe responslblllLy
- 1hls ls Lhe [udlclal answer Lo Lhe problem of allocaLlng hosplLal's llablllLy for Lhe negllgenL acLs of healLh
pracLlLloners, absenL facLs Lo supporL Lhe appllcaLlon of tespooJeot sopetlot.
- 1hls provldes for Lhe duLles expecLed [from hosplLals]. ln Lhls case, Sl falled Lo perform Lhe duLy of
exerclslng reasonable care Lo proLecL from harm all paLlenLs admlLLed lnLo lLs faclllLy for medlcal
LreaLmenL. SI fa||ed to conduct an |nvest|gat|on of the matter reported |n the note of the count
nurse, and th|s estab||shed SI's part |n the dark consp|racy of s||ence and concea|ment about the
gauzes.
- Sl has acLual / consLrucLlve knowledge of Lhe maLLer, Lhrough Lhe reporL of Lhe aLLendlng nurses +
Lhe facL LhaL Lhe operaLlon was carrled on wlLh Lhe asslsLance of varlous hosplLal sLaff
- lL also breached lLs duLles Lo oversee or supervlse all persons who pracLlce medlclne wlLhln lLs walls and Lake
an acLlve sLep ln flxlng Lhe negllgence commlLLed
- Sl also llable under nCC 2180
lL falled Lo adduce evldence Lo show LhaL lL exerclsed Lhe dlllgence of a good faLher of Lhe famlly ln Lhe accredlLaLlon and
supervlslon of ur. Ampll





L1kCN CCkCkA1ICN v. SS CLSAk ICVLkC
IAC1S:
Cn 23 Aprll 1984, 8ubln uy enLered lnLo a ConLracL of Lease wlLh Cesar !. !overo over a properLy locaLed aL L. 8eyes
Ave., LsLancla, llollo for Lhe purpose of operaLlng a gasollne sLaLlon for a perlod of flve (3) years. Cn 30 Aprll 1984,
peLlLloner, a domesLlc corporaLlon engaged ln Lhe lmporLaLlon and dlsLrlbuLlon of gasollne and oLher peLroleum
producLs, enLered lnLo a 8eLall uealer ConLrac wlLh 8ubln uy from 1984-1989 under Lhe dealershlp conLracL, peLlLloner
sold lLs producLs ln quanLlLles as ordered by Lhe dealer. lL llkewlse obllgaLed lLself Lo dellver Lhe producLs Lo Lhe dealer aL
Lhe places agreed upon by Lhe parLles. 1he dealer, meanwhlle, obllgaLed hlmself Lo excluslvely malnLaln peLlLloner's
Lrademarks and brand names ln hls gasollne sLaLlon. 1he parLles also agreed LhaL Lhe dealer shall make good, seLLle and
pay, and hold peLlLloner harmless agalnsL all losses and clalms lncludlng Lhose of Lhe parLles, Lhelr agenLs and employees
- for deaLh, personal ln[ury or properLy damage arlslng ouL of any use or condlLlon of Lhe dealer's premlses or Lhe
equlpmenL and faclllLles Lhereon, regardless of any defecLs Lhereln, Lhe dealer's non-performance of Lhe conLracL, or Lhe
sLorage and handllng of producLs on Lhe premlses.

ln order Lo comply wlLh lLs obllgaLlon Lo dellver Lhe peLroleum producLs Lo Lhe dealer, peLlLloner conLracLed Lhe haullng
servlces of !ose vlllaruz, who dld buslness under Lhe name Cale lrelghL Servlces. 1he haullng conLracL4 was execuLed ln
March 1988 for a perlod of Lhree years, renewable for anoLher Lhree upon agreemenL of Lhe parLles.

under Lhe haullng conLracL, vlllaruz speclflcally asslgned Lhree (3) unlLs of Lank Lrucks excluslvely for Lhe haullng
requlremenLs of peLlLloner for Lhe dellvery of Lhe laLLer's producLs, namely Lank Lrucks wlLh Lhe plaLe numbers lvC 603,
lvC 381 and lvC 383. uellvery lncludes noL only LransporLaLlon buL also proper loadlng and unloadlng and dellvery."3
1he parLles also agreed LhaL vlllaruz shall save peLlLloner from any and all clalms of Lhlrd persons arlslng ouL of, buL noL
necessarlly llmlLed Lo, hls performance of Lhe Lerms and condlLlons of Lhe conLracL. lurLhermore, vlllaruz obllgaLed
hlmself Lo be answerable Lo peLlLloner for damage Lo lLs planL, equlpmenL and faclllLles, lncludlng Lhose of lLs
employees, dealers and cusLomers, resulLlng from hls negllgence and/or lack of dlllgence.

8ubln uy execuLed SA ln favor of Chlong uy auLhorlzlng Lhe laLLer Lo manage and admlnlsLer Lhe gasollne sLaLlon.
Chlong uy and hls wlfe, uorLlna M. uy, operaLed Lhe gasollne sLaLlon as agenLs of 8ubln uy. Powever, on 27 november
1990, Chlong uy lefL for Pong kong, leavlng uorLlna uy Lo manage Lhe gasollne sLaLlon.1991, around Len o'clock ln Lhe
mornlng, 8onnle Allanaralz, an employee of Lhe gasollne sLaLlon, ordered from peLlLloner varlous peLroleum producLs.
eLlLloner Lhen requesLed Lhe servlces of vlllaruz for Lhe dellvery of Lhe producLs Lo Lhe gasollne sLaLlon ln LsLancla,
llollo. Pe, however, used a Lank Lruck dlfferenL from Lhe Lrucks speclflcally enumeraLed ln Lhe haullng conLracL execuLed
wlLh peLlLloner. eLlLloner neverLheless allowed Lhe LransporL and dellvery of lLs producLs Lo LsLancla ln Lhe Lank Lruck
drlven by eplLo lgdanls.

uurlng Lhe unloadlng of Lhe peLroleum from Lhe Lank Lruck lnLo Lhe flll plpe LhaL led Lo Lhe gasollne sLaLlon's
underground Lank, for reasons unknown, a f|re started |n the f||| p|pe and spread to the rubber hose connected to the
tank truck. uurlng Lhls Llme, drlver eplLo lgdanls was nowhere Lo be found. 8ysLanders Lhen Lrled Lo puL ouL Lhe flames.
lL was Lhen LhaL lgdanls reLurned Lo Lhe gasollne sLaLlon wlLh a bag of drled flsh ln hand. Seelng Lhe flre, he goL lnLo Lhe
Lruck wlLhouL deLachlng Lhe rubber hose from Lhe flll plpe and drove ln reverse, dragglng Lhe burnlng fuel hose along Lhe
way. As a resu|t, a conf|agrat|on started and consumed the nearby propert|es of here|n defendants, spouses Cesar I.
Iovero and Lrma Cudllla-!overo, amounLlng Lo 1,300,000, of spouses LeonlLo 1an and Luzvllla Samson, amounLlng Lo
800,000, and of spouses 8ogello Llmpoco and Lucla !osue Llmpoco, amounLlng Lo 4,112,000.

Pereln respondenLs LhereafLer flled separaLe acLlons for damages agalnsL peLlLloner, vlllaruz, 8ubln uy, and uorLlna uy,
dockeLed as Clvll Case nos. 19633, 19684 and 20122 aL Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL (81C) of llollo ClLy. 1he cases, havlng
arlsen from Lhe same seL of facLs, were subsequenLly consolldaLed. kespondents a||eged that the neg||gence of
pet|t|oner and |ts co-defendants |n the conduct of the|r bus|nesses caused the f|re that destroyed the former's
propert|es.

ln lLs separaLe Answer, peLlLloner eLron alleged LhaL Lhe peLroleum producLs were already pald for and owned by 8ubln
uy and uorLlna uy. Moreover, lL alleged LhaL vlllaruz was responslble for Lhe safe dellvery of Lhe producLs by vlrLue of
Lhe haullng conLracL. 1hus, peLlLloner asserLed, llablllLy for Lhe damages caused by Lhe flre resLed on 8ubln uy and
vlllaruz. eLlLloner llkewlse flled a cross-clalm agalnsL lLs co-defendanLs for conLrlbuLlon, lndemnlLy, subrogaLlon, or
oLher rellefs for all expenses and damages LhaL lL may have suffered by vlrLue of Lhe lncldenL. lL also flled a counLerclalm
agalnsL respondenLs hereln.
k1C
found peLlLloners and co-defendanLs solldarlly llable for damages Lo respondenLs. 1he 81C held LhaL lgdanls, as Lhe
drlver of Lhe Lank Lruck, was negllgenL ln Lhe performance of hls work when he lefL Lhe Lank Lruck whlle lL was ln Lhe
process of unloadlng Lhe peLroleum. Pe was also negllgenL when he drove Lhe Lruck ln reverse wlLhouL deLachlng Lhe
burnlng fuel hose. 1he Lrlal courL sLaLed LhaL defendanL vlllaruz falled Lo convlnce Lhe courL LhaL he had exerclsed due
dlllgence ln Lhe hlrlng and supervlslon of hls employees. 1he 81C llkewlse held LhaL peLlLloner was negllgenL ln allowlng
vlllaruz Lo use a Lank Lruck LhaL was noL lncluded among Lhe Lrucks speclflcally enumeraLed under Lhe haullng conLracL.
llnally, Lhe courL ruled LhaL Lhe gasollne sLaLlon was owned and operaLed by 8ubln uy and uorLlna uy aL Lhe Llme of Lhe
lncldenL.

CA upheld Lhe flndlngs of Lhe 81C LhaL peLlLloner eLron was negllgenL for havlng allowed Lhe operaLlon of Lhe gasollne
sLaLlon absenL a valld dealershlp conLracL. 1hus, Lhe CA consldered Lhe gasollne sLaLlon as one run by peLlLloner lLself,
and Lhe persons managlng Lhe gasollne sLaLlon as peLlLloner's mere agenLs. Lven lf a valld dealershlp conLracL exlsLed,
peLlLloner was sLlll llable for damages, because Lhere was as yeL no compleLe dellvery of lLs producLs. 1he flre had
broken ouL whlle peLroleum was belng unloaded from Lhe Lank Lruck Lo Lhe sLorage Lank. 1he CA furLher held LhaL
peLlLloner was also negllgenL ln allowlng vlllaruz Lo use an unaccredlLed Lank Lruck for Lhe LransporL and dellvery of Lhe
peLroleum aL Lhe Llme of Lhe lncldenL.

Lhe appellaLe courL found hlm Lo be vlllaruz negllgenL ln Lhe conducL of hls buslness. 1hus, he was made llable for Lhe
damages caused by hls employee ln ArL. 2180 ln relaLlon Lo 2176 of Lhe Clvll Code. llnally, wlLh regard Lo uorLlna uy,
Lhe CA held LhaL, as one of Lhe operaLors of Lhe gasollne sLaLlon, she falled Lo submlL evldence LhaL she had exerclsed
due dlllgence ln Lhe operaLlon Lhereof.

ISSUL:
1. WCn eLron ls aL faulL for conLlnulng Lo do buslness w/ 8ubln uy, an lndependenL peLroleum dealer, w/o
renewlng or exLendlng Lhelr explred dealershlp agreemenL?
2. WCn casual connecLlon exlsLs beL eLron's fallure Lo renew or exLend lLs dealershlp conLracL w/ 8ubln uy and
flre LhaL lnfllcLed damages on bulldlngs surroundlng laLLer's gas sLaLlon?
3. WCn eLron ls llable for flre LhaL occurred durlng unloadlng by an lndependenL hauler of Lhe fuel ls sold Lo an
equally lndependenL dealer aL laLLer's gas sLaLlon?
4. WCn suppller of fuel can be held llable for neglecL of oLhers ln dlsLrlbuLlng and sLorlng such fuel?
nLLD:
1. eLlLloner, as an lmporLer and a dlsLrlbuLer of gasollne and oLher peLroleum producL, execuLed wlLh a dealer of Lhese
producLs an excluslve dealershlp agreemenL for muLual beneflL and galn. Cn one hand, peLlLloner beneflLs from Lhe sale
of lLs producLs, as well as Lhe adverLlsemenL lL galns when lL broadens lLs geographlcal coverage ln conLracLlng wlLh
lndependenL dealers ln dlfferenL areas. 1he producLs sold and Lhe servlces rendered by Lhe dealer also conLrlbuLe Lo lLs
goodwlll. 1hus, desplLe Lhe Lransfer of ownershlp upon Lhe sale and dellvery of lLs producLs, peLlLloner sLlll lmposes Lhe
obllgaLlon on Lhe dealer Lo excluslvely carry lLs producLs. 1he dealer also beneflLs from Lhe dealershlp agreemenL, noL
only from Lhe resale of Lhe producLs of peLlLloner, buL also from Lhe laLLer's goodwlll.

Powever, wlLh Lhe use of lLs Lrade name and Lrademark, peLlLloner and Lhe dealer lnform and guaranLee Lo Lhe publlc
LhaL Lhe producLs and servlces are of a parLlcular sLandard or quallLy. More lmporLanLly, Lhe publlc, whlch ls noL prlvy Lo
Lhe dealershlp conLracL, assumes LhaL Lhe gasollne sLaLlon ls owned or operaLed by peLlLloner. 1hus, respondenLs, who
suffered damages from Lhe acL or omlsslon LhaL occurred ln Lhe gasollne sLaLlon and LhaL caused Lhe flre, may flle an
acLlon agalnsL peLlLloner based on Lhe represenLaLlons lL made Lo Lhe publlc. As far as Lhe publlc ls concerned, lL ls
enough LhaL Lhe esLabllshmenL carrles excluslvely Lhe name and producLs of peLlLloner Lo assume LhaL Lhe laLLer ls llable
for acLs done wlLhln Lhe premlses.

2. 8espondenLs have a clalm agalnsL peLlLloner based on Lhe dealershlp agreemenL. 1he 81C and Lhe CA ruled LhaL, by
vlrLue of Lhe explraLlon of Lhe dealershlp conLracL, Lhe dealer was relegaLed Lo belng peLlLloner's agenL. Cn Lhls polnL,
we agree wlLh peLlLloner LhaL Lhe explraLlon or nonexlsLence of a dealershlp conLracL dld noL lpso facLo Lransform Lhe
relaLlonshlp of Lhe dealer and peLlLloner lnLo one of agency. As far as Lhe parLles Lo Lhe dealershlp conLracL were
concerned, Lhe rlghLs and obllgaLlons as Lo Lhem sLlll subslsLed, slnce Lhey conLlnued Lo muLually beneflL from Lhe
agreemenL. 1hus, nelLher parLy can clalm LhaL lL ls no longer bound by Lhe Lerms of Lhe conLracL and Lhe explraLlon
Lhereof.

We Lhen [udlclously revlewed Lhe Lerms of Lhe conLracL and found LhaL pet|t|oner |s ||ab|e to respondents for the
damages caused by the f|re. As peLlLloner lLself polnLs ouL, lL owns Lhe equlpmenL relevanL Lo Lhe handllng and sLorage
of gasollne, lncludlng Lhe gasollne pumps and Lhe underground Lank.10 lL ls also responslble for Lhe dellvery of Lhe
peLroleum Lo Lhe dealer. 1he lncldenL occurred aL Lhe Llme Lhe peLroleum was belng unloaded Lo Lhe underground Lank
peLlLloner owned. Aslde from falllng Lo show Lhe acLual cause of Lhe flre, lL also falled Lo rebuL Lhe presumpLlon LhaL lL
was negllgenL ln Lhe malnLenance of lLs properLles and ln Lhe conducL of lLs buslness.

Moreover, lL cannoL be denled LhaL peLlLloner llkewlse obllgaLed lLself Lo dellver Lhe producLs Lo Lhe dealer. When
Lhe lncldenL occurred, peLlLloner, Lhrough Cale lrelghL Servlces, was sLlll ln Lhe process of fulfllllng lLs obllgaLlon Lo Lhe
dealer. We dlsagree wlLh lLs conLenLlon LhaL dellvery was perfecLed upon paymenL of Lhe goods aL lLs depoL. 1here was
yeL no compleLe dellvery of Lhe goods as evldenced by Lhe aforemenLloned haullng conLracL peLlLloner execuLed wlLh
vlllaruz. 1haL conLracL made lL clear LhaL dellvery would only be perfecLed upon Lhe compleLe unloadlng of Lhe gasollne.

1hus, wlLh regard Lo Lhe dellvery of Lhe peLroleum, V|||aruz was act|ng as the agent of pet|t|oner etron. lor a fee, he
dellvered Lhe peLroleum producLs on lLs behalf. noLably, peLlLloner even lmposed a penalLy clause ln lnsLances when
Lhere was a vlolaLlon of Lhe haullng conLracL, whereln lL may lmpose a penalLy ranglng from a wrlLLen warnlng Lo Lhe
LermlnaLlon of Lhe conLracL. 1herefore, as far as Lhe dealer was concerned wlLh regard Lo Lhe Lerms of Lhe dealershlp
conLracL, acLs of vlllaruz and hls employees are also acLs of peLlLloner. 8oth the k1C and the CA he|d that V|||aruz fa||ed
to rebut the presumpt|on that the emp|oyer was neg||gent |n the superv|s|on of an emp|oyee who caused damages to
another, and, thus, pet|t|oner shou|d ||kew|se be he|d accountab|e for the neg||gence of V|||aruz and Igdan|s.

1o relLeraLe, peLlLloner, Lhe dealer 8ubln uy - acLlng Lhrough hls agenL, uorLlna uy - shared Lhe responslblllLy for Lhe
malnLenance of Lhe equlpmenL used ln Lhe gasollne sLaLlon and for maklng sure LhaL Lhe unloadlng and Lhe sLorage of
hlghly flammable producLs were wlLhouL lncldenL. As boLh were equally negllgenL ln Lhose aspecLs, peLlLloner cannoL
pursue a clalm agalnsL Lhe dealer for Lhe lncldenL. 1herefore, both are so||dar||y ||ab|e to respondents for damages
caused by the f|re.

eLlLloner was llkewlse negllgenL ln allowlng a Lank Lruck dlfferenL from LhaL speclflcally provlded under lLs haullng
conLracL wlLh vlllaruz. WlLh respecL Lo Lhe clalms of Lhlrd persons, lL ls noL enough for peLlLloner Lo allege LhaL Lhe Lank
Lruck meL Lhe same requlremenLs provlded under Lhe conLracL, lL musL duly prove lLs allegaLlons. 1hls, peLlLloner falled
Lo do. 1o relLeraLe, lL was noL able Lo prove Lhe proxlmaLe cause of Lhe flre, only Lhe lnvolvemenL of Lhe Lank Lruck and
Lhe underground sLorage Lank. noLably, boLh pleces of equlpmenL were under lLs responslblllLy. AbsenL any poslLlve
deLermlnaLlon of Lhe cause of Lhe flre, a presumpLlon exlsLs LhaL Lhere was someLhlng wrong wlLh Lhe Lruck or Lhe
underground sLorage Lank, or boLh. eLlLloner, whlch had Lhe obllgaLlon Lo ensure LhaL Lhe Lruck was safe, ls llkewlse
llable for Lhe operaLlon of LhaL Lruck.

eLlLloner malnLalns LhaL by vlrLue of Lhe haullng conLracL, vlllaruz musL be held responslble for Lhe acLs of lgdanls, Lhe
drlver of Lhe Lank Lruck. ln Lhls aspecL, peLlLloner ls correcL. Whlle lL may be vlcarlously llable Lo Lhlrd persons for
damages caused by vlllaruz, Lhe laLLer ls neverLheless llable Lo peLlLloner by vlrLue of Lhe non-llablllLy clause ln Lhe
haullng conLracL. under Lhls provlslon, he saved peLlLloner from any and all clalms of Lhlrd persons arlslng ouL of, buL noL
necessarlly llmlLed Lo, hls performance of Lhe Lerms and condlLlons of Lhls agreemenL. eLlLloner even obllgaLed hlm Lo
malnLaln an accepLable Merchandlse lloaLer ollcy Lo provlde lnsurance coverage for Lhe producLs enLrusLed Lo hlm,
and a Comprehenslve Ceneral LlablllLy lnsurance Lo cover any and all clalms for damages for personal ln[ury, lncludlng
deaLh or damages Lo properLy, whlch may arlse from operaLlons under Lhe conLracL.13

1hus, vlllaruz ls also llable Lo peLlLloner based on Lhe haullng conLracL. under 8ule 6, Sec. 8 of Lhe 8ules of CourL,
peLlLloner may enforce Lhe Lerms of Lhe haullng conLracL agalnsL hlm. Powever, conslderlng LhaL lL dld noL lmplead
vlllaruz ln Lhe presenL case, nor dld lL assall Lhe ueclslon of Lhe CA ln dlsmlsslng Lhe cross-clalm, peLlLloner can no longer
go afLer hlm based on LhaL cross-clalm.

noneLheless, Lhls ls noL Lhe same as saylng LhaL vlllaruz ls no longer solldarlly llable Lo respondenLs.
As Lhe employer of lgdanls, vlllaruz was lmpleaded by hereln respondenLs ln Lhe lower courL and was found Lo be
solldarlly llable wlLh hls oLher co-defendanLs. AbsenL an appeal before Lhls CourL assalllng Lhe rullng of Lhe lower courL
and Lhe CA, vlllaruz remalns Lo be solldarlly llable wlLh peLlLloner and co-defendanLs 8ubln uy and uorLlna uy. 1hus,
peLlLloner may only clalm conLrlbuLlon from hlm ln accordance wlLh ArLlcle 1217 of Lhe Clvll Code, and noL by vlrLue of
lLs haullng conLracL, ln Lhe evenL LhaL respondenLs declde Lo proceed agalnsL peLlLloner alone for Lhe saLlsfacLlon of
[udgmenL. ArL. 1217 sLaLes:

aymenL made by one of Lhe solldary debLors exLlngulshes Lhe obllgaLlon. lf Lwo or more solldary debLors offer Lo pay,
Lhe credlLor may choose whlch offer Lo accepL. Pe who made Lhe paymenL may clalm from hls co-debLors only Lhe share
whlch corresponds Lo each, wlLh Lhe lnLeresL for Lhe paymenL already made. lf Lhe paymenL ls made before Lhe debL ls
due, no lnLeresL for Lhe lnLervenlng perlod may be demanded. (Lmphasls supplled)

1he share, meanwhlle, of solldary debLors ls conLalned ln ArL. 1208, Lo wlL: lf from Lhe law, or Lhe naLure of Lhe wordlng
of Lhe obllgaLlons Lo whlch Lhe precedlng arLlcle refers Lhe conLrary does noL appear, Lhe credlL of debL shall be
presumed Lo be dlvlded lnLo as many equal shares as Lhere are credlLors or debLors, Lhe credlLs or debLs belng
consldered dlsLlncL from one anoLher, sub[ecL Lo Lhe 8ules of CourL governlng Lhe mulLlpllclLy of sulLs.

1o puL lL slmply, based on Lhe rullng of Lhe lower courLs, Lhere are four (4) persons who are llable Lo pay damages Lo
respondenLs. 1he laLLer may proceed agalnsL any one of Lhe solldary debLors or some or all of Lhem slmulLaneously,
pursuanL Lo ArLlcle 1216 of Lhe Clvll Code. 1hese solldary debLors are peLlLloner eLron, Lhe hauler vlllaruz, Lhe operaLor
uorLlna uy and Lhe dealer 8ubln uy. 1o deLermlne Lhe llablllLy of each defendanL Lo one anoLher, Lhe amounL of
damages shall be dlvlded by four, represenLlng Lhe share of each defendanL. Supposedly, under Lhe haullng conLracL,
peLlLloner may requlre vlllaruz Lo lndemnlfy lL for lLs share. Powever, because lL was noL able Lo malnLaln Lhe cross-clalm
flled agalnsL hlm, lL shall be llable for lLs own share under ArLlcle 1208 and can no longer seek lndemnlflcaLlon or
subrogaLlon from hlm under lLs dlsmlssed cross-clalm. eLlLloner may noL pursue lLs cross-clalm agalnsL 8ubln uy and
uorLlna uy, because Lhe cross-clalms agalnsL Lhem were also dlsmlssed, moreover, Lhey were all equally llable for Lhe
conflagraLlon as dlscussed hereln.
8Uk8L v. MAGUL1A
(A.C. No. S713, Iune 10, 2002)
IAC1S:
eLlLloner uomlnador . 8urbe flled a complalnL for dlsbarmenL, suspenslon or any dlsclpllnary acLlon agalnsL ALLy.
AlberLo C. MagulLa. 8espondenL agreed Lo legally represenL Lhe peLlLloner ln a money clalm and posslble clvll case. Pe
prepared Lhe demand leLLers and oLher legal papers, however, he laLer on suggesLed LhaL Lhe peLlLloner musL flle Lhe
necessary complalnL.
eLlLloner pald an amounL of 23, 000 for lawyer's fees and amounLs for flllng Lhe case. MonLhs
had passed buL Lhere was sLlll no feedback regardlng Lhe peLlLloner's case. eLlLloner would
frequenLly lnqulre yeL respondenL would repeaLedly Lell hlm Lo walL. 1o prove LhaL Lhe case was already flled,
respondenL broughL Lhe peLlLloner Lo Lhe Pall of !usLlce 8ulldlng aL Lcoland, uavao
ClLy. Pe made Lhe peLlLloner walL for hours aL Lhe prosecuLor's offlce and came back wlLh Lhe
news LhaL Lhe Clerk of CourL was absenL LhaL day. eLlLloner personally wenL Lo Lhe Cfflce of Lhe Clerk of CourL and
found ouL LhaL Lhe case was noL flled. A confronLaLlon Look place whereln Lhe respondenL denled Lhe allegaLlon. lL was
only when Lhe cerLlflcaLlon was shown LhaL ALLy. MagulLa admlLLed LhaL he spenL Lhe money for hls own purpose and
offered Lo relmburse Lhe 8urbe.

Issue: WheLher or noL Lhe lawyer should be dlsbarred?

ne|d: es. 1he Supreme CourL upheld Lhe declslon of Lhe Commlsslon on 8ar ulsclpllne of Lhe l8 as follows: lL ls
evldenL LhaL Lhe 23,000 deposlLed by complalnanL wlLh Lhe 8esplclo Law Cfflce was for Lhe flllng fees of Lhe 8egwlll
complalnL. WlLh complalnanL's deposlL of Lhe flllng fees for Lhe 8egwlll complalnL, a correspondlng obllgaLlon on Lhe parL
of respondenL was creaLed and LhaL was Lo flle Lhe 8egwlll complalnL wlLhln Lhe Llme frame conLemplaLed by hls cllenL.
1he fallure of respondenL Lo fulflll Lhls obllgaLlon due Lo hls mlsuse of Lhe flllng fees deposlLed by complalnanL, and hls
aLLempLs Lo cover up Lhls mlsuse of funds of Lhe cllenL, whlch caused complalnanL addlLlonal damage and pre[udlce,
consLlLuLes hlghly dlshonesL conducL on hls parL, unbecomlng a member of Lhe law professlon. 1he subsequenL
relmbursemenL by Lhe respondenL of parL of Lhe money deposlLed by complalnanL for flllng fees, does noL exculpaLe Lhe
respondenL for hls mlsapproprlaLlon of sald funds."

De| Mar v CA and De| Mar G.k. No. 139008 March 13,2002
Iacts:
1he prlvaLe respondenL, norma Lbersole uel Mar, and her slsLer, llorence Lbersole llnch, lnherlLed Lhree (3) parcels of
land covered by 1C1nos. 1-38397, 1-38398 and 1-38402, slLuaLed ln Mablnl, SanLlago ClLy, wlLh a LoLal area of 29,736
square meLers, more or less. Cn uecember 6, 1974,llorence Lbersole llnch, a resldenL of new ?ork, uSA, execuLed a
general power of aLLorney namlng and consLlLuLlng prlvaLe respondenL as her aLLorney-ln-facL wlLh regard Lo Lhe sub[ecL
properLy. Cn !anuary 29, 1973,prlvaLe respondenL, acLlng for herself and as aLLorney-ln-facL of llorence Lbersole llnch,
execuLed ueeds of AbsoluLe Sale ln favor of peLlLloner coverlng Lhe Lhree aforemenLloned parcels of land. 1he prlvaLe
respondenL ls Lhe moLher of hereln peLlLloner. Cn March 23, 1976, llorence Lbersole llnch execuLed a ueed of
ConflrmaLlon ln new ?ork, uSA, conflrmlng and raLlfylng all Lhe acLs and deeds execuLed by norma Lbersole del Mar, ln
conveylng properLles Lo 8oberL L. del Mar, 'as appearlng ln uocumenL nos.
1780, age 37, 8ook no. 14, Serles of 1973, 1781, age 38, 8ook no. 14,Serles of 1973, and 1782, age 38, 8ook no. 14,
Serles of 1973, of Lhe noLarlal 8eglsLry of aulo ascua, a noLary publlc for and ln Lhe rovlnce of lsabela, hlllpplnes'.
1hls documenL was auLhenLlcaLed by Wenceslao !.C.Culrolglco, vlce-Consul of Lhe hlllpplne ConsulaLe Cfflce ln new
?ork, uSA.

AfLer Lhe peaceful and conLlnuous possesslon by peLlLloner of Lhe sub[ecL properLles for more Lhan LwenLy-Lwo (22)
years, a complalnL for reconveyance was flled by x x x prlvaLe respondenL agalnsL x x x peLlLloner on May 13, 1997,
alleglng, lnLer-alla, LhaL x x x peLlLloner obLalned Lhe aforemenLloned CerLlflcaLes of 1lLle Lhrough fraud and decelL.
rlvaLe respondenL clalmed LhaL x x x sald properLles were lefL by her under Lhe admlnlsLraLlon of peLlLloner, who
allegedly Lransferred Lhe ownershlp of x xx sald realLy ln hls name by causlng Lhe lssuance of CerLlflcaLes of 1lLle ln hls
name wlLhouL her knowledge and consenL. Powever, records show LhaL before she lefL for Lhe unlLed SLaLes, prlvaLe
respondenL execuLed Lhe correspondlng ueeds of AbsoluLe Sale ln favor of peLlLloner. 1hls case,
enLlLled 'norma Lbersole del Mar represenLed by Cerald del Mar vs.
8oberLo del Mar and Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds, rovlnce of lsabela' was flled
before Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL of SanLlago ClLy, 8ranch 33 and dockeLed asClvll Case no. 2373

Issue: WheLher Lhe accused acLed ln negllgence?

ne|d: es. 1he negllgence of ALLy. Abuan does noL fall under Lhese excepLlons. Pls negllgence ln Lhls case was hls
lnexcusable fallure Lo flle Lhe requlred appellanL's 8rlef, Lhus causlng Lhe dlsmlssal of Lhe appeal of
peLlLloner. 8uL Lhe laLLer was noL wlLhouL faulL. Pe was aware of ALLy. Abuan's fallure Lo appear aL Lhe preLrlal
conference, a fallure LhaL had placed hlm ln defaulL.

8ecause peLlLloner was ln defaulL, prlvaLe respondenL's evldence was recelved ex parLe by Lhe 81C. no wonder, Lhe Lrlal
courL declded agalnsL hlm. ?eL, he reLalned ALLy. Abuan's servlces for Lhe appeal. Cn e ls bound by Lhe declslons of one's
counsel regardlng Lhe conducL of Lhe case, especlally where Lhe former does noL complaln agalnsL Lhe manner ln whlch
Lhe laLLer handled Lhe case. ln effecL, peLlLloner consenLed Lo Lhe shabby and negllgenL LreaLmenL of hls case by hls
counsel.
Pence, he should noL complaln now of Lhe negllgence or fraud" done Lo hlm by hls lawyer. A parLy's counsel cannoL be
blamed for negllgence, lf Lhe parLy was llkewlse gullLy of Lhe same. CllenLs should suffer Lhe consequences of Lhe
negllgence, mlsLake or lack of compeLence of Lhe counsel whom Lhey Lhemselves hlred, and whom Lhey had full
auLhorlLy Lo flre aL any Llme and replace wlLh anoLher.