BATIQUIN+v.pptx

8/17/2019 BATIQUIN+v.pptx

1/23

BATIQUIN VS.

COURT OF APPEALS

Group 7

Matias ж Maulion ж Medenilla жMedina ж Me ino


2/23

SEPTEMBER 21 ,1988

Dr. Batiquin with assistance of Dr. Sy, Nurse Arlene

Diones and student nurses simple caesarian section on Mrs. Villegas

After 4 minutesMrs. Villegas deli!ered "achel Acogido at ##$4 AM

Mrs. Villegas remained confined until Sept %&, #'((She was regularly !isited )y Dr. Batiquin


3/23

SEPTEMBER 28, 1988

Mrs. Villegas chec*ed out of the hospital and paid+ #,. as professional fee thru Dr. Batiquin-s

secretary.

Soon after, Mrs. Villegas suffered !"o#$%& p$%' and complained of )eing ()*)r$'+. She r"u&&-

&o'' +)r pp)$).

She consulted Dr. Batiquin, and was prescri)edcertain medicines which she too* until Decem)er

#'((.


4/23

OCTOBER /1, 1988

Dr. Batiquin ga!e Mrs. Villegas a medical

certificate on her return to wor* on

No!em)er &, #'((.

2N0 EE OF NOVEMBER 1988 Mrs. Villegas returned to wor*.


5/23

+ersistence of a)dominal pains and fe!er despite

medications prescri)ed )y Dr. Batiquin

hen the pains )ecame un)eara)le, she rapidlylost weight and consulted Dr. /ho on 0anuary %,

#'('.


6/23

3ANUAR4 25, 1989

Dr. /ho found Mrs. Villegas ()*)r$'+, p&) and!r)+$% ('.

1pon e2amination, a)dominal mass was felt one finger

)elow the um)ilicus which was suspected to )e either a

uterine tumor or o!arian cyst, either of which could )e

cancerous.

3hest, A)domen and /idney 5rays were ta*en

Blood count re!ealed $%()6$o% inside her a)dominal

ca!ity

All of the results impelled Dr. /ho to suggest Mrs.

Villegas to undergo another surgery


7/23

During the surgery, a whitish yellow discharge was

found inside the a)domen.

An o!arian cyst on each of the o!aries which ga!e

out pus, dirt and pus )ehind the uterus and a piece

of ru))er material 6% 2 7 inches8 on the right

uterus em)edded on the o!arian cyst.

Dr. /ho descri)ed the ru))er material as a foreign

)ody which loo*ed li*e a 9ru))er glo!e:;. And

which is also 9ru))er drain5li*e:;.


8/23

=his foreign )ody is the cause of infection of the

o!aries and consequently all the discomfort

suffered )y Mrs. Villegas after her deli!ery on

Septem)er %#, #'((.


9/23

+iece of ru))er allegedly found was not presented

in court.

Dr. /ho testified that she sent it to 3e)u 3ity to a

pathologist for e2amination, it was not mentioned

in the pathologist- s Surgical +athology "eport.

Although a medical certificate, a progress record,

an anesthesia record, a nurses-s record and a

physician discharge summary were presented, the

trial court regarded these as mere hearsay.


10/23

=he =rial 3ourt refused to gi!e weight to Dr.

/ho-s testimony regarding the presence of

piece of ru))er since Dr. /ho 9may not ha!e

first hand *nowledge: thereof I have heard somebody that says there is a foreign body that goes with the tissues but

unluckily, I don’t know where the rubber was.


11/23

hen the Dr. Batiquin as*ed Dr. /ho regarding the

piece of ru))er 9Dr. Kho answered that there is

rubber indeed but she threw it away.:

=his was not denied nor disputed )y Dr. /ho leading

the trial court to conclude that there are two

!ersions on the wherea)outs of the ru))er$

#. =hat it was sent to a pathologist in 3e)u 3ity

%. =hat Dr. /ho threw it away


12/23

Tr$& 6our +)&" $% (*or o( +) p)$$o%)r, 0r.

B$u$%.

=he 3ourt of Appeals deemed Dr. /ho-s positi!e

testimony to definitely esta)lish that a piece of

ru))er was found near Mrs. Villegas- uterus.

=hus, +) Cour o( App)&' r)*)r')" +) ")6$'$o%o( r$& 6our.


13/23

Pr)po%")r%6) o( )*$")%6)

=he appellate court then ruled>or the miseries endured for more than ? months due to

negligence of Dr. Batiquin, moral damages in the

amount of + #,.@ e2emplary damages in the

amount of + %,.@ and attorney-s fees in the

amount of + %,.

=he fact that Mrs. Villegas that can no longer )ear

children was not ta*en into consideration

"emo!al of said organs was shown to )e a direct resultof the ru))er left


14/23

=he appealed udgement, dismissing the complaint

for damages is "V"SD and S= AS


15/23

Dr. Batiquin appealed, claiming that the appellate

court

A)use of discretionCac* or e2cess of urisdiction

There are exceptions to the rule that only

uestions of law may be raised in a petition for

review on certiorari.

=he focal point of the instant appeal is the

appreciation of Dr. /ho-s testimony. =hepetitioner-s contend that the 3A misappreciated a

part of Dr. /ho-s testimony.


16/23


17/23

It is perfectly reasonable to believe the

testimony of a witness with respect to some

facts and disbelieve his testimony with

respect to other facts.


18/23

TRIAL COURT Dr. Batiquin-s testimony

No ru))er drain was used in the operation as corro)orated )y Dr. Sy

No tear on Dr. Batiquin-s glo!es after the

operation

No )lood smears on her hands upon remo!ing her

glo!es

Denials or NA=


19/23

!ositive testimony is stronger than negative

testimony.+ositi!e testimony should come from a credi)le

source.


20/23

RES IPSA LOQUITUR

The thing speaks for itself


21/23

SUPREME COURT 0ECISION 3aesarian section was done under the e2clusi!e

control of Dr. Batiquin.

Mrs. Villegas did not undergo any operation which

could not ha!e caused the offending piece ofru))er to appear in her uterus.

Dr. Batiquin is therefore lia)le for negligently

lea!ing )ehind a piece of ru))er in Mrs. Villegasa)domen and for all the ad!erse effects thereof.

SC (($r#)" +) 6+&&)%)" ")6$'$o% o( +) CA.


22/23

A physician is )ound to ser!e the interest of

his patients with the greatest solicitude,

gi!ing them always his )est talent and s*ill.


23/23

TAN 4OU

Documents

BATIQUIN+v.pptx