Paolo Anthony C. De Jesus vs. Dr. Romeo F. Uyloan, substituted by his wife Salvacion Uyloan, Asian Hospital and Medical Center and Dr. John Francois Ojeda,
G.R. No. 234851, February 15, 2022
Facts:
1. On September 13, 2010, petitioner underwent an abdomino-pelvic sonogram. Dr. Uyloan diagnosed petitioner with Cholelithiasis, a condition where there is a presence of stones in the gall bladder. Dr. Uyloan advised petitioner to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectorny to remove the gallstones. The operation was done on September 15, 2010.
2. Petitioner alleged that upon his discharge from the AHMC, the release forms stated that he was in "good condition" and "recovered." However, he experienced vomiting and unbearable pain in his abdominal area.
3. Petitioner went to another hospital for a series of medical tests, the results of which is different from the first. He had to undergo another operation.
4. On November 10, 2015, petitioner filed a Complaint "For Damages under Articles 1170 and 1173 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines" against respondents.
5. Dr. Uyloan filed a Motion to Dismiss anchored on grounds of prescription, forum shopping, and lack of jurisdiction. Citing Art. 1146 of the Civil Code, he argued that petitioner's action based on quasi-delict is already barred, having been filed beyond the four-year prescriptive period. As to forum shopping, he claimed that petitioner had filed criminal and administrative cases against him way back in 2011.
Issues:
· Whether or not there is medical malpractice
· Whether or not the action already prescribed
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
FIRST ISSUE
Medical malpractice is a particular form of negligence which consists in the failure of a physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances. In order to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove that the physician or surgeon either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would not have done, and that the failure or action caused injury to the patient. There are thus four elements involved in medical negligence cases, namely: duty, breach, injury, and proximate causation.
The allegations and arguments in the complaint unmistakably show that the cause of action is premised upon the law and jurisprudence on damages in general and medical negligence under the Civil Code provisions on quasi-delict. There is no mention at all of any express promise on the part of the defendant doctors to provide medical treatment or achieve a specific result. The absence of an express agreement as basis for contractual liability is evident from a plain invocation of an implied contract between the parties.
The court hold that a mere reference to an implied contract between the physician and the patient in general is insufficient for pleading a cause of action under the contract theory of professional malpractice. An action for medical malpractice based on contract must allege an express promise to provide medical treatment or achieve a specific result.
SECOND ISSUE
Yes. The Supreme Court held that from the recitals of the complaint, petitioner's cause of action accrued on September 15, 2010, the day Dr. Uyloan and Dr. Ojeda performed the operation on his gallbladder. Clearly, the filing of the case against said physicians on November 10, 2015, is already baned by prescription.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment