FACTS:
Private respondent Editha Sioson went to Rizal Medical Center (RMC) in February 1995 for a check-up due to lumbar pains. In 1999, she was referred to Dr. Pedro Lantin III of RMC for the same problem. Several diagnostic laboratory tests were ordered, which revealed that her right kidney is normal, but her left kidney is non-functioning and non-visualizing. She underwent kidney operation in September 1999.
On February 18, 2000, private respondent's husband, Romeo Sioson, filed a complaint for gross negligence and/or incompetence before the Board of Medicine (BOM) against the doctors involved in the kidney operation, including petitioner Rico Rommel Atienza. It was alleged that the doctors negligently removed the fully functional right kidney instead of the left non-functioning and non-visualizing kidney.
During the proceedings before the BOM, private respondent Editha Sioson filed a formal offer of documentary evidence consisting of certified photocopies of X-ray request forms and other documents to prove that her kidneys were correctly located at the time of the operation. Petitioner objected to the admissibility of the exhibits, claiming they were mere photocopies, not properly identified and authenticated, and hearsay.
The BOM admitted the formal offer of exhibits and scheduled a hearing for the reception of evidence. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the same reasons as his objections. The BOM denied the motion, stating that it should first admit the evidence to determine their probative value.
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), challenging the BOM's orders admitting the evidence. The CA dismissed the petition, prompting petitioner to file a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
The issues presented for resolution are: 1) whether petitioner availed of the proper remedy in filing the petition for certiorari with the CA, and 2) whether the CA committed a reversible error in its decision.
ISSUES:
-
Whether the petitioner availed of the proper remedy when he filed the petition for certiorari to assail the orders of the Board of Medicine.
-
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave reversible error and decided a question of substance not in accordance with law.
RULING:
-
Procedural Issue: The Court of Appeals held that the petitioner did not avail of the proper remedy when he filed the petition for certiorari to assail the orders of the Board of Medicine. The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
-
Substantive Issue: The Court did not provide the ruling for this issue.