ABELARDO LIM and ESMADITO GUNNABAN, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and DONATO H.GONZALES, respondents.
G.R. No. 125817. January 16, 2002
Facts:
Gonzales bought a passenger jeep from Vallarta, a holder of a
certificate of public convenience for the operation of a public utility
vehicle. He continued to operate the public transport business without
transferring the registration of the vehicle to his name. Thus, the
original owner remained to be the registered owner and operator of
the vehicle. Unfortunately, the vehicle got involved in a road mishap
with the truck owned by Lim and driven by Gunnaban which caused it
severe damage. Gunnaban admitted responsibility for the accident, so
that petitioner Lim shouldered the costs of hospitalization of those
wounded, compensation for the heirs of the deceased passenger and
the restoration of the other vehicle involved. He also negotiated for
the repair of the private respondent's jeepney but the latter refused
and demanded for its replacement .Private respondent filed a
complaint for damages against petitioners. Meanwhile, the jeepney
was left by the roadside to corrode and decay. The trial court decided
in favor of private respondent and awarded him his claim. On appeal,
the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence,
petitioner filed this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the new owner of a passenger jeepney who continued
to operate the same under the so-called kabit system and in the
course thereof met an accident has the legal personality to bring the
action for damages against the erring vehicle.
Held:
The thrust of the law in enjoining the kabit system is not much as to
penalize the parties but to identify the person upon whom
responsibility may be fixed in case of an accident with the end view of
protecting the riding public. In the present case, it is once apparent
that the evil sought to be prevented in enjoining the kabit system
does not exist. The court gave the following reasons:
(1) It is neither Gonzales or Vallarta (the parties in the Kabit
system) who are liable for damages, (2) the case did not arise
from a scenario whereby liability arose by either Gonzales or
Vallarta leading the public to believe that jeepney belonged to
the registered owner, and (3) the riding public was not
bothered or inconvenienced at the very least by the illegal
arrangement. On the contrary, it was the private respondent
himself who had been wronged and was seeking compensation
for the damage done to him. The damages demanded by
Gonzales is a fair amount taking into consideration the amount
of profits lost due to the accident.
Dr. Rubi Li v Spouses Soliman
G.R No. 165279
June 7, 2011
Facts:
Respondents’ 11-year old daughter, Angelica Soliman,
underwent a biopsy of the mass located in her lower extremity
at the St. Luke’s Medical Center (SLMC) on July 7, 1993 and
results showed that Angelica was suffering from osteosarcoma,
osteoblastic type, cancer of the bone because of that a
necessity of amputation was conducted by Dr, Tamayo on
Angelica’s right leg in order to remove the tumor and to
prevent the metastasis that chemotherapy was suggested by
Dr. Tamayo, which he referred to petitioner Dr. Rubi Li, a
medical oncologist. The respondent was admitted to SLMC on
August 18, 1993; however, she died 11 days after the
administration of chemotherapy first cycle. Respondents of Angelicas lower extremity, that her immune system was
brought their daughter’s body to the Philippine National Police already weak on account of the malignant tumor in her knee.
Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame for post-mortem examination
after the refusal of the hospital to release the death certificate
without full payment of bills. The Medico-Legal Report showed
that the cause of death as "Hypovolemic shock secondary to
multiple organ hemorrhages and Disseminated Intravascular
Coagulation. The respondents filed charges against the SLMC
and physicians involve for negligence and failure to observe the
essential precautions in to prevent Angelica’s untimely death.
Petitioner denied the allegation for damages as she observed
best known procedures, highest skill and knowledge in the
administration of chemotherapy drugs despite all efforts the
patient died. The trial court was in favor of the petitioner and
ordered to pay their unpaid hospital bill in the amount of P139,
064.43, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision
supporting the respondents pray.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner can be held liable for failure to
fully disclose serious side effects to the parents of the child
patient who died while undergoing chemotherapy.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that the petitioner cannot be held
liable stating that "There are four essential elements a plaintiff
must prove in a malpractice action based upon the doctrine of
informed consent: (1) the physician had a duty to disclose
material risks; (2) he failed to disclose or inadequately
disclosed those risks; (3) as a direct and proximate result of the
failure to disclose, the patient consented to treatment she
otherwise would not have consented to; and (4) plaintiff was
injured by the proposed treatment. Examining the evidence on
record, we hold that there was adequate disclosure of material
risks inherent in the chemotherapy procedure performed with
the consent of Angelicas parents. Respondents could not have
been unaware in the course of initial treatment and amputation