View full case

REYES v. SISTERS OF MERCY HOSPITAL

FACTS:

Petitioner Leah Alesna Reyes and her children filed a complaint for damages against respondents, alleging that the late Jorge Reyes did not die of typhoid fever but due to the wrongful administration of chloromycetin. The attending doctors, Dr. Marlyn Rico and Dr. Marvie Blanes, diagnosed and treated Jorge for typhoid fever. Antibiotics were administered but Jorge's condition worsened, and he eventually died. The cause of death was determined to be "Ventricular Arrhythmia Secondary to Hyperpyrexia and typhoid fever." The case proceeded to trial with expert testimonies from both parties.

In another case, petitioners, the parents of Jorge Reyes, filed a case against the attending physicians, Dr. Ramon Vacalares and Dr. Manuel Llorente, alleging medical malpractice. Petitioners presented the testimonies of Dr. Renato Gavino and Dr. Anselmo Ong, who testified that further tests should have been conducted to confirm if Jorge had typhoid fever. Respondents presented expert witnesses, Dr. Peter Gotiong and Dr. Ibarra Panopio, who opined that Jorge's symptoms and positive Widal Test results suggested typhoid fever. The trial court absolved the respondents of negligence, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

In both cases, petitioners sought to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The petitioner argued that all requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur were present in the first case, but the appellate court rejected this contention. Petitioners brought the case before the Court of Appeals, raising three assignments of errors, including the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the death of Jorge Reyes was due to the negligence, carelessness, imprudence, and lack of skill or foresight on the part of defendants.

  2. Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable in the case.

  3. Whether respondents were negligent in hiring their employees.

  4. Whether either party is entitled to damages.

RULING:

  1. Issue on negligence regarding Jorge Reyes' death

    • The Supreme Court ruled that defendants were not negligent and upheld that the respondent doctors did not breach their duty of care. Dr. Rico's diagnosis and treatment, including the use of the Widal test and chloromycetin, were deemed consistent with the standard medical practices. The expert testimonies presented by the respondents indicated that the diagnosis and treatment were reasonable and appropriately handled.

  2. Applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur

    • The Supreme Court held that res ipsa loquitur was not applicable in this case. The circumstances of Jorge Reyes' death required expert opinion to determine whether there was a breach of standard care, which goes beyond common knowledge and observation. Therefore, no presumption of negligence could be applied to the respondent doctors based on mere occurrence of death.

  3. Negligence in hiring employees

    • There was no finding of negligence in the hiring practices of the Mercy Community Clinic. The testimonies upheld that the hired personnel, including the respondents, met the standards of their professional practice.

  4. Entitlement to damages

    • As no negligence was found, the petitioners were not entitled to damages. The Court affirmed the decision that respondents were not liable for the death of Jorge Reyes.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Res Ipsa Loquitur This doctrine may be applied to infer negligence in situations where the injury would not typically occur without negligence, the instrumentality causing the injury was under the defendant's control, and the injury was not due to any voluntary action by the plaintiff. However, it is not applicable when the case involves complex medical procedures requiring expert testimony.

  • Medical Malpractice The four elements required to prove medical malpractice are duty, breach, injury, and proximate causation. Expert testimony is generally necessary to establish a breach of the standard care in medical malpractice cases.

  • Standard of Care in Medical Practice Physicians are required to exercise reasonable diligence, competence, and skill expected of average practitioners in their community.

  • Non-applicability of Extraordinary Diligence Unlike common carriers, physicians are not bound by a statutory duty of extraordinary diligence for the safety of their patients but must adhere to high professional standards resonating with ordinarily good physicians.