BATIQUIN vS. COURT OF APPEALS

1. BATIQUIN vS.COURT OF APPEALS Group 7 MatiasжMaulionж Medenillaж MedinaжMejino

2. September 21 ,1988 • Dr. Batiquin with assistance of Dr. Sy, Nurse Arlene Diones and student nurses • simple caesarian section on Mrs. Villegas • After 45 minutes • Mrs. Villegas delivered Rachel Acogido at 11:45 AM • Mrs. Villegas remained confined until Sept 27, 1988 • She was regularly visited by Dr. Batiquin

3. September 28, 1988 • 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 untilDecember 1988.

4. October 31, 1988 • Dr. Batiquin gave Mrs. Villegas a medical certificate on her return to work on November 7, 1988. • 2nd Week of november 1988 • Mrs. Villegas returned to work.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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’srecord and a physician discharge summary were presented, the trial court regarded these as mere hearsay.

10. 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.

11. 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: • That it was sent to a pathologist in Cebu City • That Dr. Kho threw it away

12. 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.

13. Preponderance of evidence • The 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

14. 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

15. 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.

17. 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.

18. TRIAL COURT • Dr. Batiquin’s testimony • No rubber drain was used in the operation • 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

19. Positive testimony is stronger than negative testimony. • Positive testimony should come from a credible source.

20. Res ipsaloquitur • The thing speaks for itself

21. SUpreME COURT DECISION • 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.

22. A physician is bound to serve the interest of his patients with the greatest solicitude, giving them always his best talent and skill.

23. Thank You!