Buera, Alessandra P; 11480580 G02

Garcia-Rueda vs Pascasio
G.R. No. 118141 September 5, 1997
The husband of Leonila Garcia-Rueda went under an operation at the UST hospital
removing the stone blocking his ureter with Dr. Domingo Antonio Jr. (surgeon) and Dr.
Erlinda Balatbat-Reyes (anaesthesiologist). After the surgery petitioners husband died of
complications during the surgery, her not being satisfied requested the National Bureau of
Investigations to conduct an autopsy of her husbands body. NBI then alleged that her
husband died because of lack of due care of the attending physician in administering
anaesthesia. NBI asserted that the two doctors who attended to petitioners husband be
charged with Homicide through Reckless Imprudence. The case went through a lot of
referrals until it came to Prosecutor Ramon Carisma who recommended that Dr. Reyes
should be the one criminally charged and Dr. Antonio Jr. be dismissed with State Prosecutor
Gregorio Arizala agreeing.
ISSUE: Whether expert testimony is needed to prove negligent acts
HELD:
Yes. In the case at bar that concerns medical malpractice, expert testimony is essential in
order to establish whether or not the procedures made by the doctors are up to bar with the
standard care of the profession as well as when it falls below such standard. Also, what is
mainly required in cases such as medical malpractices are opinions under those who are
scientifically knowledgeable in order to support the conclusion and cause of such procedure.
In the case at bar, the expert testimony of Dr. Arizala and Dr. Salvador has been heeded but
both merely established the probable cause of death and failed to explain whether or not the
standard of care practiced was below or within standards.
 Buera, Alessandra P; 11480580 G02

Professional Services Inc. vs Agana

G.R. No. 126297 January 31, 2007
Natividad Agana was admitted to Medical City because of her difficulty in bowel movement
and was diagnosed by Dr. Ampil to be suffering from cancer of the sigmoid. From the
findings of Dr. Ampil, and with the consent of her husband, he performed an anterior
resection surgery only to find that the malignant cells were spreading on her left ovary. They
performed hysterectomy through Dr. Fuentes, also with her husbands consent. After
surgery, Dr. Ampil was able to check and confirm the surgery to be in order, and proceeded
with the rest of the surgery when nurses made remarks on the operation record that two
gauzes were missing and that a search was done but it was not found. After diligent search
Dr. Ampil ordered the closure of the incision. Days after, Natividad complained of pain in
her anal region, doctors claimed and assured her that it was a natural after effect of the
surgery. Dr. Ampil then recommended she sought the help of an oncologist. After months
of consultation done in the United States, she was declared cancer free. After coming back,
her daughter found a piece of gauze sticking out of her vagina which Dr. Ampil extracted
and told her the pains will start subsiding. Natividad claimed the pain to have worsened and
went back to the hospital where another gauze was found and then she underwent surgery
once again.
ISSUE: Where Dr. Ampil was guilty of malpractice and negligence
HELD:
Yes. It was stated that leaving foreign subjects in the wound after incision has been closed is
prima facie negligence by operating surgeon. Court held that even if such was required, it is
his legal duty to inform the patient within reasonable time by advising them what he has
been compelled to do so that his patient can seek relief from the effects of the foreign object
in her body. Regarding his argument that it should be Dr. Fuentes who must be held liable, it
was Dr. Ampil who was in charge of control and management and was the one who had the
final say and found Dr. Fuentes work to be in order therefore Dr. Fuentes is not liable for
malpractice and negligence.
 Buera, Alessandra P; 11480580 G02

Ramos vs Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 124354 December 29, 1999
Erlinda Ramos underwent a surgery to remove gallstones in her bladder which was headed
by Dr. Hosuka in Delos Santos Medical Center, in order for the procedure to push through
he would find a good anaesthesiologist. The operation did not go as planned and Hosuka
was three hours late for the operation while Dr. Gutierrez the anaesthesiologist ended up
botching the administration of the anaesthesia which caused her to submit into a coma and
suffer brain damage. Her family sued the hospital along with Dr. Hosuka and Dr. Gutierrez
given that the expert testimony showing that Erlindas current condition was the cause of
the botched administration of anaesthesia specifically in intubating her where her sister-in-
law was a witness and heard Gutierrez saying Ang hirap ma-intubate nito, mali yata yung
pagkapasok. O lumalaki ang tiyan.
ISSUE: Whether there was negligence on the part of Dr. Hosuka and Dr. Gutierrez
HELD:
Yes. Dr. Hosuka and Dr. Gutierrez were indeed negligent especially on the part of Gutierrez
during Erlindas intubation process wherein the court contended that one need not be an
expert in anaesthesiology to figure out that something was wrong the moment the patients
stomach ballooned. On the part of Dr. Hosuka, he failed to exercise his authority as captain
of the ship in determining if Dr. Gutierrez observed the proper standard procedures because
he was late and was not able to consult and check the status.
 Buera, Alessandra P; 11480580 G02

Reyes vs Sisters of Mercy Hospital

G.R. No. 130547 October 3, 2000
The wife of Jorge Reyes filed a petition for damages in the Trial Court on behalf of her
deceased husband who according to the hospital was suffering from typhoid fever and was
not responding to the treatment administered to him. It was found out that the cause of his
death was Ventricular Arrythemia Scondary to Hyperpyrexia and typhoid fever. Her
petition in the Trial Court was dismissed and was affirmed by the Appellate Court. It was
later found out that Jorge did not die of typhoid fever but it was due to the wrongful
administration of chloromycetin which was given to the patient without sufficient tests on
patients compatibility with the drug.
ISSUE: Whether Sisters of Mercy Hospital is liable for the death
HELD:
No. There was no proof that the attending physician deviated from the usual course of
typhoid fever and that the antibiotic administered to him was given after sufficient
compatibility tests where no reaction seems to have been triggered. The doctors in the case
at bar did not deviate from the standard procedures of treating typhoid fever which
therefore does not make them liable.