Case Name: Garcia-Rueda vs.

Pascasio By: GUANIO, Agustini Alfonso

GR No. 118141 Romero Topic: Negligence; Medical Malpractice
Date: September 5, 1997
FACTS
Florencio Rueda, husband of Leonila Garcia-Rueda (petitioner), undwerwent surgical operation at the UST hospital for the
removal of a stone blocking his ureter. He was attended by Dr. Antonio, Jr. who was the surgeon , while Dr. Balatbat-Reyes was
the anaesthesiologist. However, 6 hrs after the surgery, Florencio dies of complications of unknown cause.

Petitioner then requested the NBI to conduct an autopsy on her husbands body. The NBI ruled that Florencios death was due
to lack of care by the attending physician in admnistering anaesthesia. The NBI recommended that the 2 said doctors be charged
for Homicide through Reckless Imprudence before the Office of the City Prosecutor.

A chain of 9 prosecutors, who have contradictory recommendations, tossed the reponsibility of conducting a preliminary
investigation on the case. The petitioner then filed graft charges against the prosecutors for partiality before the Ombudsman,
which issued the assailed resolution dismissing the complaint for lack of evidence.

ISSUE: WON the doctors are guilty of medical malpractice or negligence.

HELD
When the victim employed the services of the 2 doctors, a physician-patient relationship was created. The doctors in effect
represented that having the needed training and skill possessed by physicians and surgeons practicing in the same field, they
will employ such training, care and skill in the treatment of their patients. The breach of these professional duties of skill and
care, or their improper performance, by a physician surgeon whereby the patient is injured in body or in health constitues
actionable malpractice.

However, in malpractice or negligence cases involving the administration of anaesthesia, two-pronged evidence is required: (1)
evidence as to the recognized standards of the medical community in the particular kind of case; and (2) a showing that the
physician in question negligently departed from this standard in his treatment.

In the present case, a causal connection is discernible from the occurrence of the victims death after negligent act of the
anaesthesiologiest in administering the anaesthesia, a fact which, if confirmed, should warrant the filing of the appropriate
criminal case. According to the NBI, the attending surgeons did not conduct the necessary interview of the patient prior to the
operation. It appears that the cause of death of the victim could have been averted had the proper drug been applied to cope with
the symptoms of malignant hyperthermia. Also, the fact that an antidote was readily available to counteract whatever
deleterioes effect the anaesthesia might produce cannot be ignored.

However, the SC ruled that the remedy under the circumstances would have been to appeal the resolution of the City
Prosecutors dismissing the criminal complaint to the Sec. of Justice. Thus, the Ombudsman acted within his power and
authority in dismissing the case. The petition is then dismissed, without prejudice of filing an appeal.

Doctrine: Notes
Medical malpractice or, more negligence, is that type of claim which a victim has
available to him or her to redress a wrong committed by a medical professional
which has caused bodily harm. In order to successfully pursue a claim of medical
malpractice, a patient must prove that a health care provider (e.g. a physician)
either failed to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider
would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent
provider would not have done; and that that failure or action caused injury to the
patient. Hence, there are 4 elements involved in medical negligence cases: (1) duty;
(2) breach; (3) injury; (4) proximate causation.