Borromeo vs. Family care hospital. And Dr.
Inso
G. R. 191018 Jan. 25, 2016
Facts:
Borromeo brought his wife to the family care hospital becaus eof acute pain at the lower stomach area
and fever for 2 days, he was admitted in said hospital and placed under the care of Dr. Inso.
Dr. Inso conducted the surgery and by then he confirmed his hypothesis that Lillian has an acute
appendicitis.
The operation was succesfully done however after 16 hours, Lilian was returned to her room where she
start to become restless and dropped her blood pressure, she was not even responded to blood
transfusion hence the tube connected to oxigen tank was inserted by dr. Inso into Lilian and order her to
put into in an Intensive care unit. Though being a secondary hospotal, it does not. Have. An icu, dr. Inso
arranged with other hospital with icu and transfer there lililan. Unfortunately lilian passed away there
despite of trying to resuscitate her.
In his autopsy report, dr. Reyes concluded thay lilia died due to hemorrhage and concluded that the
internal bleeding was caused by .5 x .5 cm opening in tge repair site. Further, he opined that it could be
avoided if the site was repaired with double suturing instead of the single continuing suture repair that
he found.
Hence the petitioner filed a complaint against family care hospital and dr. Inso for. Medical malpractice
basing it to the autopsy report made by reyes and pursue the case with having reyes as the winess.
Rtc ruled in favor of the petitioner, nelieving in the theory of dr. Reyes on the. 5x. 5cm. And applied the
docyrine of resipsa loquitor. And ordered tge respo dents to pay for damages, death indemnity, moral
and exemplary, loss of earning payment, atty.s Fees, cost of suit
When the respondents appealed, ca reversed.
Hence this petition for certitorari of carlos boromeo
ISSUE:
Whether respondents are guilty of medical malpractice and that the doctrine of resipsa loquitor can be
applied in tge case.
Held:
No. The basic legal principle that equally applies to both civil and criminal cases that whiever alleges the
fact has the burden of proof.
Petitiiner's failure to present expert witnesses resulted in his failure to prove petitioners' negligence.
During the investigation ryes found to be not an expert in the subject matter having no training
residency in pathology nor in surgery after he passed the medical board exam.
On the other hand the repondent shows as a wit ess dr. Ramos.
Dr. Ramos graduated from the Far Eastern University, Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation, in 1975. He
took up his post-graduate internship at the Quezon Memorial Hospital in Lucena City, before taking the
board exams. After obtaining his professional license, he underwent residency training in pathology at
the Jose R. Reyes Memorial Center from 1977 to 1980. He passed the examination in Anatomic, Clinical,
and Physical Pathology in 1980 and was inducted in 1981. He also took the examination in anatomic
pathology in 1981 and was inducted in 1982.31
At the time of his testimony, Dr. Ramos is a practicing pathologist with over 20 years of experience. He is
an associate professor at the Department of Surgery of the Fatima Medical Center, the Manila Central
University, and the Perpetual Help Medical Center. He is a Fellow of the Philippine College of Surgeons, a
Diplomate of the Philippine Board of Surgery, and a Fellow of the Philippine Society of General Surgeons.
He also headed the Perpetual Help General Hospital Pathology department as well as the Batangas
general hospital.
I deed bwing an expert in the subject matter, the testimony of dr. Ramos carry greater than od dr. Reyes.
Dr. Ramos discredited Dr. Reyes' theory that the 0.5 x 0.5 cm opening at the repair site caused Lilian's
internal bleeding. According to Dr. Ramos, appendical vessels measure only 0.1 to 0.15 cm, a claim that
was not refuted by the petitioner. If the 0.5 x 0.5 cm opening had caused Lilian's hemorrhage, she would
not have survived for over 16 hours; she would have died immediately, within 20 to 30 minutes, after
surgery.
Dr. Ramos submitted that the cause of Lilian's death was hemorrhage due to DIC, a blood disorder that
leads to the failure of the blood to clot; Dr. Ramos considered the abundant petechial hemorrhage in
the myocardic sections and the hemorrhagic right lung; the multiple bleeding points indicate that Lilian
was afflicted with DIC.
The court deny the petition for. Lack of merit
People vs. Moises 1968 in pangasinan
Moises brothers wilfully, unlawfully and falloneously attacked and injurred jose solaria through the use
of pistol, bolo and, stones.
Solaria while walking has been shot by Florentino moises by a 45 pistol, eusebio moises thereafter
hacked the victim twice with bolo and baltazar moises hit him with stones.
They were cought by the police after the residents and witnesses reported the incident.
They pleaded not guilty.
The autopsy report of dr. Ramos states that CAUSE OF DEATH:
Shock due to profuse internal and external hemorrhages secondary to gunshot and incise wounds.
CONCLUSION:
Which injuries resulted in the death of the said Jose Soloria instantaneously thereafter.
The court found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt considering this autopsy report and the
testimony of the witnesses. ca affirmed the trial court.
Issue: the principal issue is tge credibility of the witnesses
Held:
Sc affirmed the decision being appealed that the respondents are found guilty of murder and imposing
death penalty and that the crime was attended by aggrevating circumstance of abuse of superior
strenght for using pistol and bolo and by which because of the injuries imputed by these pistol and bolo,
as concluded in the autopsy report, led to the victims death.