PEDRITO DELA TORRE vs. DR.

ARTURO IMBUIDO
G.R. No. 192973
Sept 29, 2014

REYES, J.:

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Feb 3, 1992 – Pedrito Dela Torre (Pedrito) brought his wife, Carmen Castillo Dela Torre
(Carmen), for a caesarian operation in the Divine Spirit General Hospital (DSGH) in Olongapo city.
The operation was conducted by Dr. Nestor Pasamba (Nestor) which delivered a baby boy. Early
morning of the next day, Carmen experience abdominal pains and had difficulty in urination. She
was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection (UTI) and was prescribed with medications by Dr.
Norma Imbuido (Norma). Carmen’s stomach was getting bigger, but Dr. Norma dismissed it as
flatulence (kabag).
When the stomach grew bigger despite the medications. Dr. Normal advised Pedrito of a
possibility of another operation but did not indicate any details as to who the doctor will be, and as
to what operation was to be conducted. After such operation, the condition of Carmen worsened,
and on Feb 13, 1992 – she vomited blood, and on the same day she died. Her death ceriticate stated
that it was due to “cardio-respiratory arrest secondary to cerebro vascular accident, hypertension
and chronic nephritis induced by pregnancy”. However, the autopsy report prepared by Dr. Richard
Patilano (Dr. Patilano) stated that it was “shock due to peritonitis, severe, with multiple intestinal
adhesions”.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

Pedrito filed a complaint for damages against Dr. Arturo Imuido (Arturo) and Norma as the
owners and operators of SDGH, and Dr. Nestor. Pedrito presented the testimony of Dr. Patilano
which stated that the possible cause of infection was due to the improper medical practice
conducted during the caesarian operation In their answer to the complaint, the respondents argued
that they observed the standard of medical care in attending Carmen, and that there was no
untoward event that occurred during the caesarian operation. On the other hand, the second
operation was clearly explained to Carmen and Pedrito prior to it being conducted and the problem
of intestinal obstruction and adhesion was resolved through said operation.
RTC of Olongapo ruled in favor of Pedrito and gave weight to the testimony of Dr. Patilano.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, respondents appealed to the CA; decision was reversed for the Pedrito
failed to establish that the respondents failed to exercise the degree of diligence required of them,
hence this petition.

ISSUES:
WON medical malpractice is evident in the case at hand

RULING:
NO, In order to successfully prove medical negligence/malpractice, a patient, or his or her
family as in this case, "must prove that a health care provider, in most cases a physician, either failed
to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he or
she did something that a reasonably prudent provider would not have done; and that failure or
action caused injury to the patient."

Four essential elements must be established namely: 1.) duty; 2.) breach; 3.) injury and 4.)
proximate causation. All four elements must be present in order to find the physician negligent and
thus, liable for damages.

For the trial court to give weight to Dr. Partilano’s report, it was necessary to show first Dr.
Partilano’s specialization and competence to testify on the degree of care, skill and diligence needed
for the treatment of Carmen’s case. Considering that it was not duly established that Dr. Partilano
practiced and was an expert on the fields that involved Carmen’s condition, he could not have
accurately identified the said degree of care, skill and diligence and the medical procedure, that
should have been applied.

The critical and clinching factor in a medical negligence case is proof of the causal
connection between the negligence and the injuries. The claimant must prove not only the injury
but also the defendant's fault, and that such fault caused the injury. A verdict in a malpractice action
cannot be based on speculation or conjecture. Causation must be proven within a reasonable
medical probability based upon competent expert testimony,which the Court finds absent in the
case at bar.