Group 7
Matias ж Maulion ж Medenilla ж Medina ж Mejino
 Dr.
Batiquin with assistance of Dr. Sy, Nurse Arlene
Diones and student nurses

simple caesarian section on Mrs. Villegas
 After

Mrs. Villegas delivered Rachel Acogido at 11:45 AM
 Mrs.

45 minutes
Villegas remained confined until Sept 27, 1988
She was regularly visited by Dr. Batiquin
 Mrs.
Villegas checked out of the hospital and paid
P 1,500.00 as professional fee thru Dr. Batiquin’s
secretary.
 Soon
after, Mrs. Villegas suffered abdominal pains
and complained of being feverish. She gradually
loss her appetite.
 She
consulted Dr. Batiquin, and was prescribed
certain medicines which she took until December
1988.
 Dr.
Batiquin gave Mrs. Villegas a medical
certificate on her return to work on
November 7, 1988.
 Mrs.
Villegas returned to work.
 Persistence
of abdominal pains and fever despite
medications prescribed by Dr. Batiquin
 When
the pains became unbearable, she rapidly
lost weight and consulted Dr. Kho on January 20,
1989.
 Dr.
Kho found Mrs. Villegas feverish, pale and
breathing fast.
 Upon
examination, abdominal mass was felt one
finger below the umbilicus which was suspected to
be either a uterine tumor or ovarian cyst, either of
which could be cancerous.
 Chest,
Abdomen and Kidney X-rays were taken
 Blood
count revealed infection inside her
abdominal cavity
 All
of the results impelled Dr. Kho to suggest Mrs.
Villegas to undergo another surgery
 During
the surgery, a whitish yellow discharge was
found inside the abdomen.
 An
ovarian cyst on each of the ovaries which gave
out pus, dirt and pus behind the uterus and a piece
of rubber material (2 x ¾ inches) on the right
uterus embedded on the ovarian cyst.
 Dr.
Kho described the rubber material as a foreign
body which looked like a “rubber glove”…. And
which is also “rubber drain-like”…. It could have
been a torn section of the gloves or from other
sources.
 This
foreign body is the cause of infection of the
ovaries and consequently all the discomfort
suffered by Mrs. Villegas after her delivery on
September 21, 1988.
 Piece
of rubber allegedly found was not presented
in court.
 Dr.
Kho testified that she sent it to Cebu City to a
pathologist for examination, it was not mentioned
in the pathologist’ s Surgical Pathology Report.
 Although
a medical certificate, a progress record,
an anesthesia record, a nurses’s record and a
physician discharge summary were presented, the
trial court regarded these as mere hearsay.
 The
Trial Court refused to give weight to Dr.
Kho’s testimony regarding the presence of
piece of rubber since Dr. Kho “may not have
first hand knowledge” thereof

I have heard somebody that says there is a
foreign body that goes with the tissues but
unluckily, I don’t know where the rubber was.
 When
the Dr. Batiquin asked Dr. Kho regarding the
piece of rubber “Dr. Kho answered that there is
rubber indeed but she threw it away.”
 This
was not denied nor disputed by Dr. Kho leading
the trial court to conclude that there are two
versions on the whereabouts of the rubber:
1.
2.
That it was sent to a pathologist in Cebu City
That Dr. Kho threw it away
 Trial
court held in favor of the petitioner, Dr.
Batiquin.
 The
Court of Appeals deemed Dr. Kho’s positive
testimony to definitely establish that a piece of
rubber was found near Mrs. Villegas’ uterus.
 Thus,
the Court of Appeals reversed the decision
of trial court.
 Preponderance
 The

of evidence
appellate court then ruled
For the miseries endured for more than 3 months due to
negligence of Dr. Batiquin, moral damages in the
amount of P 100,000.00; exemplary damages in the
amount of P 20,000.00; and attorney’s fees in the
amount of P 25,000.00
 The
fact that Mrs. Villegas that can no longer bear
children was not taken into consideration

Removal of said organs was shown to be a direct result
of the rubber left
 The
appealed judgement, dismissing the complaint
for damages is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
 Dr.




Batiquin was ordered to pay Mrs. Villegas
P 17,000.00 for actual damages
P 100,000.00 for moral damages
P 20,000.00 for exemplary damages
P 25,000.00 for attorney’s fees plus cost of litigation
 Dr.
Batiquin appealed, claiming that the appellate
court


Abuse of discretion
Lack or excess of jurisdiction
 There
are exceptions to the rule that only
questions of law may be raised in a petition for
review on certiorari.
 The
focal point of the instant appeal is the
appreciation of Dr. Kho’s testimony. The
petitioner’s contend that the CA misappreciated a
part of Dr. Kho’s testimony.
 It
is perfectly reasonable to believe the
testimony of a witness with respect to some
facts and disbelieve his testimony with
respect to other facts.
 Dr.

No rubber drain was used in the operation



Batiquin’s testimony
Was corroborated by Dr. Sy
No tear on Dr. Batiquin’s gloves after the
operation
No blood smears on her hands upon removing her
gloves
 Denials or NEGATIVE TESTIMONIES
 Positive
testimony is stronger than negative
testimony.

Positive testimony should come from a credible
source.
 The
thing speaks for itself
 Caesarian
section was done under the exclusive
control of Dr. Batiquin.
 Mrs.
Villegas did not undergo any operation which
could not have caused the offending piece of
rubber to appear in her uterus.
 Dr.
Batiquin is therefore liable for negligently
leaving behind a piece of rubber in Mrs. Villegas
abdomen and for all the adverse effects thereof.
 SC
affirmed the challenged decision of the CA.
A
physician is bound to serve the interest of
his patients with the greatest solicitude,
giving them always his best talent and skill.