Case Title: Atienza vs. Board of Medicine
Case No.: G.R. No. 117407
Date: February 9, 2011
Ponente: Nachura, J.
Doctrine:
xxx
Facts:
Petitioner sought to assail the decision of the CA through Rule 45, whereby petitioner
alleges that the BOM erred in their decision of admitting the evidences presented by the
respondent. The respondents in this case claim that there was gross negligence and or
incompetence against the doctors who operated on Editha Siosan. Editha Siosan was operated by
several doctors including the petitioner of this case whereby, the doctors instead of removing the
non-functioning left kidney of Editha Siosan, removed the right functioning kidney instead. The
petitioner sought to dismiss the complaint of Siosan alleging that such evidence is inadmissible
since they were not original copies, and it does not follow in accordance with the best evidence
rule as provided for in Section 3, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
Issue/s:
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUE:
Whether petitioner Atienza availed of the proper remedy when he filed the petition for
certiorari dated 06 December 2004 with the court of appeals under rule 65 of the rules of
court to assail the orders dated 26 may 2004 and 08 October 2004 of respondent board.
2. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE:
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave reversible error and decided a question of
substance in a way not in accordance with law and the applicable decisions of the honorable
court when it upheld the admission of incompetent and inadmissible evidence by
respondent board, which can result in the deprivation of professional license – a property
right or one’s livelihood.
Ruling:
It was held that petitioner was correct in availing the proper remedy, since such evidence
appealed by the petitioner in this case was interlocutory and could not be appealed. The only
remedy available in the ordinary course of law for the petitioner is under Rule 65 of the Rules of
court.
Petitioner however is mistaken that such evidence was inadmissible, since such proceedings with
the Board of Medicine, they fall under the category of administrative proceedings whereby the
rules of evidence is not strictly applied but rather applied in a way that it is suppletory and
analogous to the Rules of Evidence. Moreover, the best evidence rule could not be applied in this
case, since the question in the case was not the proper anatomical location of the kidneys, rather
the question of whether there was negligence on the part of the doctors.
The petition was dismissed.