View full case

ORLANDO D. GARCIA v. RANIDA D. SALVADOR

FACTS:

Orlando D. Garcia filed a petition for review to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeals, which held him liable for gross negligence in a case involving Ranida D. Salvador. Ranida was employed at Limay Bulk Handling Terminal, Inc. and was required to undergo a medical examination at the Community Diagnostic Center (CDC). Garcia, as a medical technologist, conducted the HBs Ag test on Ranida, which showed her as "HBs Ag: Reactive." Based on this result, the Company terminated Ranida's employment. However, subsequent tests conducted at Bataan Doctors Hospital and CDC yielded negative results.

The Company rehired Ranida after another HBs Ag test conducted by CDC showed a negative result. Ranida and her father then filed a complaint for damages against Garcia and the unknown pathologist of CDC. The trial court dismissed the complaint due to lack of sufficient evidence. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and found Garcia liable for damages for negligently issuing an incorrect HBs Ag result.

The main issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals correctly found Garcia liable for damages.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether petitioner Garcia failed to comply with the requirements of the Clinical Laboratory Law and the Revised Rules and Regulations Governing the Registration, Operation and Maintenance of Clinical Laboratories in the Philippines.

  2. Whether the violation of these requirements constitutes negligence.

  3. Whether or not the defendant pathologist had effective administrative supervision and control over the activities in the laboratory.

  4. Whether or not the defendant pathologist was directly supervising the HBsAG test conducted by the defendant medical technologist.

  5. Whether or not the defendant medical technologist's failure to comply with laws and rules regarding laboratory examinations constitutes a breach of duty.

  6. Whether or not the plaintiff suffered injury as a direct consequence of the defendant medical technologist's failure to comply with laws and rules.

  7. Whether or not the award of damages is appropriate in this case.

RULING:

  1. Yes, petitioner Garcia failed to comply with the requirements of the Clinical Laboratory Law and the Revised Rules and Regulations Governing the Registration, Operation and Maintenance of Clinical Laboratories in the Philippines. The clinical laboratory he operates, CDC, is not administered, directed and supervised by a licensed physician as required by law.

  2. Yes, the violation of these requirements constitutes negligence. The law imposes upon a person the duty to comply with these requirements and failure to do so renders him liable to whoever may be injured as a result.

  3. The Supreme Court ruled that:

  4. The defendant pathologist, although periodically visiting the laboratory, does not have effective administrative supervision and control over the activities in the laboratory.

  5. The defendant pathologist did not directly supervise the HBsAG test conducted by the defendant medical technologist.

  6. The defendant medical technologist's failure to comply with laws and rules regarding laboratory examinations constitutes a breach of duty.

  7. The plaintiff suffered injury as a direct consequence of the defendant medical technologist's failure to comply with laws and rules.

  8. The award of damages, including moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, is appropriate in this case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Violation of a statutory duty is negligence.

  • Compliance with the requirements of the Clinical Laboratory Law and the Revised Rules and Regulations Governing the Registration, Operation and Maintenance of Clinical Laboratories in the Philippines is mandatory.

  • Clinical laboratories must be administered, directed and supervised by a licensed physician authorized by the Secretary of Health.

  • Medical technologists must be under the supervision of a pathologist or a licensed physician.

  • The results of clinical examinations may only be released to the requesting physician or his authorized representative upon the direction of the laboratory pathologist.

  • Supervision and control means the authority to act directly whenever a specific function is entrusted by law or regulation to a subordinate; direct the performance of duty; restrain the commission of acts; review, approve, revise or modify acts and decisions of subordinate officials or units.

  • A breach of duty by a health care provider can result in liability for damages under Article 20 of the New Civil Code.

  • Damages, including moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, may be awarded when there is a violation of a legal provision and the plaintiff suffers damage as a consequence.