10/11/2019 The Exiled Prince: RAMOS vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
Higit Pa

The Exiled Prince

automotive Case Digest Culture Current Events Opinion economic food security Technology transportation

M o n d a y, J u n e 2 3 , 2 0 1 4 Older Posts

► 2019 (1)
►
RAMOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS
► 2018 (6)
►

G.R. No. 124354. December 29, 1999. ► 2017 (6)

►

► 2016 (25)
►
Ponente: Kapunan
► 2015 (28)
►

FACTS:
▼ 2014 (37)
▼

Erlinda Ramos underwent a surgical procedure to remove stone from her gall bladder (cholecystectomy). They hired Dr. Hosaka, a surgeon, to conduct the surgery ► November (1)
►

at the De Los Santos Medical Center (DLSMC). Hosaka assured them that he would find a good anesthesiologist. But the operation did not go as planned, Dr. Hosaka ► October (3)
►
arrived 3 hours late for the operation, Dra. Gutierrez, the anesthesiologist “botched” the administration of the anesthesia causing Erlinda to go into a coma and ► September (1)
►
suffer brain damage. The botched operation was witnessed by Herminda Cruz, sister in law of Erlinda and Dean of College of Nursing of Capitol Medical Center.
► August (7)
►

► July (3)
►
The family of Ramos (petitioners) sued the hospital, the surgeon and the anesthesiologist for damages. The petitioners showed expert testimony showing that
Erlinda's condition was caused by the anesthesiologist in not exercising reasonable care in “intubating” Erlinda. Eyewitnesses heard the anesthesiologist saying “Ang ▼ June (9)
▼
hirap ma-intubate nito, mali yata ang pagkakapasok. O lumalaki ang tiyan.” Vda. DE BATACLAN vs.
MEDINA

Diagnostic tests prior to surgery showed that Erlinda was robust and fit to undergo surgery. Keep your Promise
PNOY: DAR must
stick to the dea...
The RTC held that the anesthesiologist ommitted to exercise due care in intubating the patient, the surgeon was remiss in his obligation to provide a “good
RAMOS vs. COURT OF
anesthesiologist” and for arriving 3 hours late and the hospital is liable for the negligence of the doctors and for not cancelling the operation after the surgeon failed
APPEALS
to arrive on time. The surgeon, anesthesiologist and the DLSMC were all held jointly and severally liable for damages to petitioners. The CA reversed the decision of
LRT vs. NAVIDAD
the Trial Court.
SOARING PRICES OF
RICE
ISSUES: Whether or not the private respondents were negligent and thereby caused the comatose condition of Ramos.
PENULLAR vs. PNB
HELD: CUSTODIO vs. COURT
Yes, private respondents were all negligent and are solidarily liable for the damages. OF APPEALS
MAKATI SHANGRI-LA vs.
RATIO: HARPER
BACK TO SCHOOL
Res ipsa loquitur – a procedural or evidentiary rule which means “the thing or the transaction speaks for itself.” It is a maxim for the rule that the fact of the
► May (3)
►
occurrence of an injury, taken with the surrounding circumstances, may permit an inference or raise a presumption of negligence, or make out a plaintiff’s prima
facie case, and present a question of fact for defendant to meet with an explanation, where ordinarily in a medical malpractice case, the complaining party must ► April (1)
►

present expert testimony to prove that the attending physician was negligent. ► March (2)
►

► February (5)
►
This doctrine finds application in this case. On the day of the operation, Erlinda Ramos already surrendered her person to the private respondents who had complete
► January (2)
►
and exclusive control over her. Apart from the gallstone problem, she was neurologically sound and fit. Then, after the procedure, she was comatose and brain
damaged—res ipsa loquitur!—the thing speaks for itself! ► 2013 (11)
►

Negligence – Private respondents were not able to disprove the presumption of negligence on their part in the care of Erlinda and their negligence was the
proximate cause of her condition. One need not be an anesthesiologist in order to tell whether or not the intubation was a success. [res ipsa loquitur applies here].
The Supreme Court also found that the anesthesiologist only saw Erlinda for the first time on the day of the operation which indicates unfamiliarity with the patient
and which is an act of negligence and irresponsibility.

The head surgeon, Dr. Hosaka was also negligent. He failed to exercise the proper authority as the “captain of the ship” in determining if the anesthesiologist
observed the proper protocols. Also, because he was late, he did not have time to confer with the anesthesiologist regarding the anesthesia delivery.

The hospital failed to adduce evidence showing that it exercised the diligence of a good father of the family in hiring and supervision of its doctors (Art. 2180). The
hospital was negligent since they are the one in control of the hiring and firing of their “consultants”. While these consultants are not employees, hospitals still exert
significant controls on the selection and termination of doctors who work there which is one of the hallmarks of an employer-employee reationship. Thus, the
hospital was allocated a share in the liability.

Damages – temperate damages can and should be awarded on top of actual or compensatory damages in instances where the injury is chronic and continuing.

Posted by Dick S. O'Rosary at 6:31 AM

Labels: case brief, Case Digest, medical malpractice, res ipsa loquitur, Torts and Damages

No comments:
Post a Comment
the-exiled-prince.blogspot.com/2014/06/ramos-vs-court-of-appeals.html 1/2