BATIQUIN VS.

COURT OF APPEALS

Group 7
Matias Maulion Medenilla
Medina Mejino

SEPTEMBER 21 ,1988

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

Diones and student nurses
simple

After 45 minutes
Mrs.

caesarian section on Mrs. Villegas

Villegas delivered Rachel Acogido at 11:45 AM

Mrs. Villegas remained confined until Sept 27, 1988

She

was regularly visited by Dr. Batiquin

SEPTEMBER 28, 1988

Mrs. Villegas checked out of the hospital and paid

P 1,500.00 as professional fee thru Dr. Batiquins
secretary.

Soon after, Mrs. Villegas suffered abdominal pains

and complained of being feverish. She gradually
loss her appetite.

She consulted Dr. Batiquin, and was prescribed

certain medicines which she took until December
1988.

OCTOBER 31, 1988

Dr. Batiquin gave Mrs. Villegas a medical

certificate on her return to work on
November 7, 1988.

2ND WEEK OF NOVEMBER 1988

Mrs. Villegas returned to work.

Persistence of abdominal pains and fever despite

medications prescribed by Dr. Batiquin

When the pains became unbearable, she rapidly

lost weight and consulted Dr. Kho on January 20,
1989.

JANUARY 20, 1989

Dr. Kho found Mrs. Villegas feverish, pale and

breathing fast.

Upon examination, abdominal mass was felt one finger

below the umbilicus which was suspected to be either a
uterine tumor or ovarian cyst, either of which could be
cancerous.

Chest, Abdomen and Kidney X-rays were taken

Blood count revealed infection inside her abdominal

cavity

All of the results impelled Dr. Kho to suggest Mrs.

Villegas to undergo another surgery

During the surgery, a whitish yellow discharge was

found inside the abdomen.

An ovarian cyst on each of the ovaries which gave

out pus, dirt and pus behind the uterus and a piece
of rubber material (2 x inches) on the right
uterus embedded on the ovarian cyst.

Dr. Kho described the rubber material as a foreign

body which looked like a rubber glove. And
which is also rubber drain-like. It could have
been a torn section of the gloves or from other
sources.

This foreign body is the cause of infection of the

ovaries and consequently all the discomfort
suffered by Mrs. Villegas after her delivery on
September 21, 1988.

Piece of rubber allegedly found was not presented

in court.

Dr. Kho testified that she sent it to Cebu City to a

pathologist for examination, it was not mentioned
in the pathologist s Surgical Pathology Report.

Although a medical certificate, a progress record,

an anesthesia record, a nursess record and a
physician discharge summary were presented, the
trial court regarded these as mere hearsay.

The Trial Court refused to give weight to Dr.

Khos testimony regarding the presence of
piece of rubber since Dr. Kho may not have
first hand knowledge thereof
I

have heard somebody that says there is a

foreign body that goes with the tissues but
unluckily, I dont know where the rubber was.

When the Dr. Batiquin asked Dr. Kho regarding the

piece of rubber Dr. Kho answered that there is
rubber indeed but she threw it away.

This was not denied nor disputed by Dr. Kho leading

the trial court to conclude that there are two
versions on the whereabouts of the rubber:
1.
2.

That it was sent to a pathologist in Cebu City

That Dr. Kho threw it away

Trial court held in favor of the petitioner, Dr.

Batiquin.

The Court of Appeals deemed Dr. Khos positive

testimony to definitely establish that a piece of
rubber was found near Mrs. Villegas uterus.

Thus, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision

of trial court.

Preponderance of evidence

The appellate court then ruled

For

the miseries endured for more than 3 months due to

negligence of Dr. Batiquin, moral damages in the
amount of P 100,000.00; exemplary damages in the
amount of P 20,000.00; and attorneys fees in the
amount of P 25,000.00

The fact that Mrs. Villegas that can no longer bear

children was not taken into consideration
Removal

of said organs was shown to be a direct result

of the rubber left

The appealed judgement, dismissing the complaint

for damages is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Dr. Batiquin was ordered to pay Mrs. Villegas

P

17,000.00 for actual damages

P 100,000.00 for moral damages
P 20,000.00 for exemplary damages
P 25,000.00 for attorneys fees plus cost of litigation

Dr. Batiquin appealed, claiming that the appellate

court
Abuse

of discretion
Lack or excess of jurisdiction

There are exceptions to the rule that only

questions of law may be raised in a petition for
review on certiorari.

The focal point of the instant appeal is the

appreciation of Dr. Khos testimony. The
petitioners contend that the CA misappreciated a
part of Dr. Khos testimony.

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.

TRIAL COURT

Dr. Batiquins testimony

No

rubber drain was used in the operation

Was corroborated by Dr. Sy

No

tear on Dr. Batiquins gloves after the

operation
No blood smears on her hands upon removing her
gloves

Denials or NEGATIVE TESTIMONIES

Positive testimony is stronger than negative

testimony.
Positive

source.

testimony should come from a credible

RES IPSA LOQUITUR

The thing speaks for itself

SUPREME COURT DECISION

Caesarian section was done under the exclusive

control of Dr. Batiquin.

Mrs. Villegas did not undergo any operation which

could not have caused the offending piece of
rubber to appear in her uterus.

Dr. Batiquin is therefore liable for negligently

leaving behind a piece of rubber in Mrs. Villegas
abdomen and for all the adverse effects thereof.

SC affirmed the challenged decision of the CA.

A physician is bound to serve the interest of

his patients with the greatest solicitude,
giving them always his best talent and skill.

THANK YOU!