Ramos vs CA

Lessons Applicable: Personal Injury and Death (Torts and Damages)

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:

 June 17, 1985 afternoon: Erlinda Ramos, 47-year old robust woman underwent on an
operation to the stone at her gall bladder removed after being tested that she was fit for
"cholecystectomy" operation performed by Dr. Orlino Hozaka.
 Dr. Hosaka charged a fee of P16,000.00, which was to include the anesthesiologist's fee
and which was to be paid after the operation.
 He assured Rogelio E. Ramos, husband that he will get a good anesthesiologist who was
Dra. Perfecta Gutierrez.
 Erlinda's hand was held by Herminda Cruz, her sister -in-law who was the Dean of the
College of Nursing at the Capitol Medical Center together with her husband went down
with her to the operating room.
 Instead of 9:30 am, Dr. Hosaka arrived at about 12:15 P.M.

Herminda noticing what Dra. Perfecta Gutierrez was doing, saw the nailbed of Erlinda
becoming bluish and Dr. Hosaka called for another anesthesiologist Dr. Calderon.

 She went out of the operating room to tell Rogelio that something is wrong.
 When she went back she saw Erlinda in a trendelenburg position and at 3 p.m. she was
taken to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) where she stayed for a month due to
bronchospasm incurring P93,542.25 and she was since then comatosed.
 She suffered brain damage as a result of the absence of oxygen in her brain for four to
five minutes.

She was also diagnosed to be suffering from "diffuse cerebral parenchymal damage" Monthly
expenses ranged from P8,000 to P10,000

 Spouses Ramos and their minors filed against Dr. Hosaka and Dra. Perfecta Gutierrez

RTC: favored the Ramos' awarding P8,000 as actual monthly expenses totalling to P632,000 as
of April 15, 1992, P100,000 atty. fees, P800,000 moral damages,P200,000 exemplary damages
and cost of suit
CA: reversed ordering the Ramos' to pay their unpaid bills of P93,542.25 plus interest

ISSUE: W/N the Ramos' are entitled to damages

HELD: YES.

 CA modified in favor of petitioners, and solidarily against private respondents the

following: 1) P1,352,000 actual damages computed as of the date of promulgation plus
a monthly payment of P8,000.00 up to the time that petitioner Erlinda Ramos expires
or miraculously survives; 2) P2,000,000 moral damages, 3) P1,500,000 temperate
damages; 4) P100,000 exemplary damages and P100,000 attorney's fees; and, 5) the
costs of the suit.
 The application of res ipsa loquitur in medical negligence cases presents a question of
law since it is a judicial function to determine whether a certain set of circumstances
does, as a matter of law, permit a given inference.
 Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is availed by the plaintiff, the need for expert medical
testimony is dispensed with because the injury itself provides the proof of negligence -
applicable in this case
 doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can have no application in a suit against a physician or
surgeon which involves the merits of a diagnosis or of a scientific treatment

As borne by the records, respondent Dra. Gutierrez failed to properly intubate the patient
according to witness Herminda

With her clinical background as a nurse, the Court is satisfied with her testimony

Dra. Gutierrez' act of seeing her patient for the first time only an hour before the scheduled
operative procedure was, therefore, an act of exceptional negligence and professional
irresponsibility

Generally, to qualify as an expert witness, one must have acquired special knowledge of the
subject matter about which he or she is to testify, either by the study of recognized authorities
on the subject or by practical experience.
Dr. Jamora, not an anesthesiologist, stated that oxygen deprivation which led to anoxic
encephalopathy was due to an unpredictable drug reaction to the short-acting barbiturate was
not accepted as expert opinion

Dr. Hosaka's negligence can be found in his failure to exercise the proper authority in not
determining if his anesthesiologist observed proper anesthesia protocols

Dr. Hosaka had scheduled another procedure in a different hospital at the same time as
Erlinda's cholecystectomy, and was in fact over three hours late for the latter's operation.

Because of this, he had little or no time to confer with his anesthesiologist regarding the
anesthesia delivery. This indicates that he was remiss in his professional duties towards his
patient

private hospitals, hire, fire and exercise real control over their attending and visiting
"consultant" staff. While "consultants" are not, technically employees, a point which
respondent hospital asserts in denying all responsibility for the patient's condition, the
control exercised, the hiring, and the right to terminate consultants all fulfill the important
hallmarks of an employer-employee relationship, with the exception of the payment of wages.

Art. 2199. — Except as provided by law or by stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate

compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. Such
compensation is referred to as actual or compensatory damages.

temperate damages can and should be awarded on top of actual or compensatory damages in
instances where the injury is chronic and continuing. And because of the unique nature of
such cases, no incompatibility arises when both actual and temperate damages are provided
for. The reason is that these damages cover two distinct phases.

They should not be compelled by dire circumstances to provide substandard care at home
without the aid of professionals, for anything less would be grossly inadequate. Under the
circumstances, an award of P1,500,000.00 in temperate damages would therefore be
reasonable.
The damage done to her would not only be permanent and lasting, it would also be
permanently changing and adjusting to the physiologic changes which her body would
normally undergo through the years.

Erlinda Ramos was in her mid-forties when the incident occurred. She has been in a comatose
state for over fourteen years now

Ramos' are charged with the moral responsibility of the care of the victim. The family's moral
injury and suffering in this case is clearly a real one. Award of P2,000,000 in moral damages
would be appropriate.

Finally, by way of example, exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00 are hereby
awarded. Considering the length and nature of the instant suit we are of the opinion that
attorney's fees valued at P100,000 are likewise proper.

Philippine Bank Of Commerce V. CA (1997)

Lessons Applicable: Last Clear Chance (Torts and Damages)

FACTS:

 May 5, 1975 to July 16, 1976: Romeo Lipana claims to have entrusted RMC funds in the
form of cash totalling P304,979.74 to his secretary, Irene Yabut, for the purpose of
depositing said funds in the current accounts of RMC with Philippine Bank of
Commerce (PBC)
 They were not credited to RMC's account but were instead deposited to Account No.
53-01734-7 of Yabut's husband, Bienvenido Cotas
 Romeo Lipana never checked their monthly statements of account reposing complete
trust and confidence on PBC
 Irene Yabut's modus operandi was to furnish 2 copies of deposit slip upon and both are
always validated and stamped by the teller Azucena Mabayad :
 original showed the name of her husband as depositor and his current account number
- retained by the bank
 duplicate copy was written the account number of her husband but the name of the
account holder was left blank
 After validation, Yabut would then fill up the name of RMC in the space left blank in the
duplicate copy and change the account number to RMC's account number
 This went on in a span of more than 1 year without private respondent's knowledge
 Upon discovery of the loss of its funds, RMC demanded from PBC the return of its
money and later on filed in the RTC

RTC: PBC and Azucena Mabayad jointly and severally liable

CA: affirmed with modification deleting awards of exemplary damages and attorney's fees

ISSUE:

1. W/N applying the last clear chance, PBC's teller is negligent for failing to avoid the injury by
not exercising the proper validation procedure-YES

2. W/N there was contirbutory negligence by RMC - YES

HELD: 60-40 ratio. Only the balance of 60% needs to be paid by the PBC

1. YES.
  The fact that the duplicate slip was not compulsorily required by the bank in accepting
deposits should not relieve the PBC of responsibility
 The odd circumstance alone that such duplicate copy lacked one vital information
(Name of the account holder) should have already put Ms. Mabayad on guard.
 Negligence here lies not only on the part of Ms. Mabayad but also on the part of the
bank itself in its lack in selection and supervision of Ms. Mabayad.
 Mr. Romeo Bonifacio, then Manager of the Pasig Branch of the petitioner bank and now
its Vice-President, to the effect that, while he ordered the investigation of the incident,
he never came to know that blank deposit slips were validated in total disregard of the
bank's validation procedures until 7 years later
 last clear chance/supervening negligence/discovered peril where both parties are
negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other,
or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to
the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm
and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof
 Antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages for the
supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against liability sought by another, if the
latter, who had the last fair chance, could have avoided the impending harm by the
exercise of due diligence.

Here, assuming that RMC was negligent in entrusting cash to a dishonest employee, yet it
cannot be denied that PBC bank, thru its teller, had the last clear opportunity to avert the
injury incurred by its client, simply by faithfully observing their self-imposed validation
procedure.

Art. 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor consists in the omission of that diligence
which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of
the persons, of the time and of the place. When negligence shows bad faith, the provisions of
articles 1171 and 2201, paragraph 2, shall apply.

If the law or contract does not state the diligence which is to be observed in the performance,
that which is expected of a good father of a family shall be required. In the case of banks,
however, the degree of diligence required is more than that of a good father of a family.
Considering the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their depositors, banks are duty
bound to treat the accounts of their clients with the highest degree of care
2. YES.

It cannot be denied that, indeed, private respondent was likewise negligent in not checking its
monthly statements of account. Had it done so, the company would have been alerted to the
series of frauds being committed against RMC by its secretary. The damage would definitely
not have ballooned to such an amount if only RMC, particularly Romeo Lipana, had exercised
even a little vigilance in their financial affairs. This omission by RMC amounts to contributory
negligence which shall mitigate the damages that may be awarded to the private respondent

Article 2179 of the New Civil Code

When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury, he
cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory, the immediate and
proximate cause of the injury being the defendant's lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover
damages, but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded