View full case

DR. VICTORIA L. BATIQUIN v. CA

FACTS:

Dr. Batiquin, a resident physician at the Negros Oriental Provincial Hospital, performed a cesarean section on Mrs. Villegas in September 1988. After the surgery, Mrs. Villegas experienced abdominal pains and fever. She consulted Dr. Batiquin who prescribed medicines for her. However, her symptoms persisted. In January 1989, Mrs. Villegas sought a second opinion from Dr. Kho who discovered the presence of a piece of rubber near Mrs. Villegas' uterus. Dr. Kho performed another surgery to remove the rubber and found that it had caused an infection in Mrs. Villegas' ovaries. The piece of rubber allegedly found was not presented in court, and although Dr. Kho testified that she sent it for examination, it was not mentioned in the pathologist's report. The trial court held in favor of Dr. Batiquin, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, finding Dr. Batiquin negligent. The court awarded moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees to Mrs. Villegas.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the trial court which ruled in favor of Dr. Batiquin, by finding negligence on the part of Dr. Batiquin in leaving a piece of rubber inside the patient's abdomen during a cesarean section.

  2. Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in establishing negligence on the part of Dr. Batiquin.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals did not err when it reversed the decision of the trial court. It found that Dr. Batiquin was negligent, as evidenced by her failure to remove a piece of rubber left inside the patient's abdomen during a cesarean section. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court, affirming the finding of negligence based on Dr. Kho's credible testimony, which was corroborated by multiple reports and further substantiated by the patient's subsequent health improvements after the removal operation.

  2. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in this case. The cesarean section was under the exclusive management of Dr. Batiquin, and the appearance of a foreign object (a piece of rubber) inside the patient's abdomen right after the procedure is an occurrence that does not happen in the absence of negligence. The onus then shifted to Dr. Batiquin to disprove this presumption of negligence, which she failed to do. Consequently, the Supreme Court found Dr. Batiquin liable for negligently leaving the rubber piece inside the patient.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Negligence and Liability in Medical Practice Medical professionals are held to high standards of care and are expected to perform duties without causing harm to the patients. Failure leading to incidents which are otherwise not expected in standard procedures constitutes negligence.

  2. Applicability of Res Ipsa Loquitur This doctrine applies in cases where the harm occurred under circumstances implying negligence in the control of the accused party, and where direct evidence of such negligence is absent or not readily available.

  3. Positive Testimony Vs. Negative Testimony Positive testimony (affirmative evidence of occurrence or presence of something) is generally given more weight than negative testimony (denials or absence of evidence).

  4. Credibility of Witnesses The credibility of a witness is determined by the coherence, consistency of their testimony, and the absence of any impugnant motives. A credible witness is crucial in establishing facts of the case.

  5. Standard of Care in the Medical Profession Medical practitioners are expected to utilize their best talent and skill in the interest of the patient diligently and to prevent harm.

The ruling substantiates the ingrained principles protecting patients' rights and ensuring accountability in medical practices. This case reaffirms the necessity for meticulous care in surgical interventions and strict adherence to ethical medical conduct.