View full case

ROGELIO E. RAMOS v. CA

FACTS:

Erlinda Ramos, a 47-year-old woman married to Rogelio Ramos and mother of three, was generally healthy except for occasional discomfort due to gallstones, for which she sought medical advice. Advised to undergo a cholecystectomy, Erlinda underwent various tests that deemed her fit for surgery. Through a mutual friend, Dr. Buenviaje, Erlinda and her husband met Dr. Orlino Hosaka, a surgeon at De Los Santos Medical Center (DLSMC), who scheduled the operation for June 17, 1985. Dr. Hosaka assured Rogelio that he would find a competent anesthesiologist, ultimately involving Dr. Perfecta Gutierrez. Erlinda was prepped for surgery on the morning of the operation day, but Dr. Hosaka was significantly delayed, arriving nearly three hours late. During the operation preparations, respondent Dr. Gutierrez attempted intubation but faced difficulty, remarking on potential insertion issues. Erlinda's condition quickly deteriorated; her nailbeds turned blue, indicating lack of oxygen, and she was placed in Trendelenburg position. Despite Dr. Calderon's intervention, Erlinda became comatose due to brain damage from oxygen deprivation lasting four to five minutes. Post-operation, she remained in intensive care for a month and was released in November 1985. However, Erlinda stayed comatose, leading her family to incur significant medical expenses. Consequently, the petitioners filed a civil case for damages against the medical staff and hospital, alleging negligence. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, awarding damages, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, absolving the hospital and medical staff, which prompted the petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the surgeon, anesthesiologist, and hospital are liable for the comatose condition of Erlinda Ramos due to alleged negligence.

  2. Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to this case.

  3. Whether the testimonies of the witnesses for the private respondents should be given credence.

  4. Whether the delay in filing the motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals can be excused.

RULING:

  1. Liability of Defendants The surgeon, anesthesiologist, and hospital are liable for the comatose condition of Erlinda Ramos. The Supreme Court found negligence in the performance of their professional duties resulting in her comatose state.

  2. Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur The doctrine applies to this case. Considering the situation, the injury was one that does not occur absent negligence.

  3. Credibility of Witnesses The Court found the testimonies of the private respondents' witnesses less credible. In contrast, it gave weight to the testimony of the nurse, Prof. Herminda Cruz, despite the appellate court's rejection.

  4. Timeliness of Petition The delay in filing the motion for reconsideration was excusable because the decision of the Court of Appeals was not sent to the counsel of record but to Rogelio Ramos, mistakenly addressed as "Atty. Rogelio Ramos."

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Res Ipsa Loquitur The accident must be of a kind that does not occur without negligence, caused by an instrumentality within exclusive control of the defendant, and without contributing conduct by the plaintiff.

  2. Proximate Cause Faulty intubation was the proximate cause of Erlinda Ramos's comatose condition, occurring in a continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening cause.

  3. Standard of Care Surgeons must ensure proper pre-operative evaluations and timely arrivals to avoid complications.

  4. Employer-Employee Relationship in Hospitals Private hospitals can be held liable for the actions of their attending and visiting physicians if they exercise significant control over them.

  5. Burden of Proof in Negligence Once negligence is shown, the defendant must prove that they exercised due diligence to avoid liability.

  6. Assessment of Damages Actual damages are awarded for pecuniary loss suffered and proved, and temperate damages can be awarded when the injury is continuing.

  7. Expert Testimony Expert witnesses must possess special knowledge, skills, or training; non-expert testimony is permissible for observable conditions and facts.