Orlando Garcia (Community Diagnostic Center(CDC)) & Bu Castro v. Ranida Salvador & Ramon Salvador GR No.

168512 March 20, 2007 Ranida was a trainee in the Accting dept of Limay Bulk Handling Terminal (company). It is the companys prerequisite to be regularized that Ranida undertake a medical examination at the CDC. The finding was that by CDC that Ranida was Hepatitis B Reactive (the finding was signed by Garcia the examiner and pathologist). So upon submission of the result to the company, she was terminated. Ranida told her father Ramon about this and her father suffered a heart attack and was confined at the Bataan hospital. Ranida later on conducted a medical examination again to various medical institutions and was found out that she was Hepatitis B negative. Thereafter, the company rehired Ranida. Nonetheless, Ranida and her father filed a complaint against Garcia for damages. They claimed that by reason of the interpretation of the result of Ranidas examination, she lost her job and suffered serious mental anxiety... while Ramon was hospitalized and lost business opportunities. Another Castro was included as unknown pathologist TC-dismissed for failure of reposndents to present sufficient evidence to prove the liability of petitioners. CA-reversed TC. Garcia liable for damages for negligently issuing an erroneous result. Castro lack of participation in the issuance of the result. Garcias contention: o He is not negligent because he followed the appropriate lab measures and procedures as dictated by his training and practice. o ISSUE: Whether Garcia may be made liable for damages HELD:

Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4688, otherwise known as The Clinical Laboratory Law From the foregoing laws and rules, it is clear that a clinical laboratory must be administered, directed and supervised by a licensed physician authorized by the Secretary of Health, like a pathologist who is specially trained in methods of laboratory medicine; that the medical technologist must be under the supervision of the pathologist or a licensed physician; and that the results of any examination may be released only to the requesting physician or his authorized representative upon the direction of the laboratory pathologist.

These rules are intended for the protection of the public by preventing performance of substandard clinical examinations by laboratories whose personnel are not properly supervised. The public demands no less than an effective and efficient performance of clinical laboratory examinations through compliance with the quality standards set by laws and regulations. We find that petitioner Garcia failed to comply with these standards. 1. CDC is not administered, directed and supervised by a licensed physician but only by a licensed Medical Technologist. Garcia conducted the HBsAG test of Ranida w/o the supervision of Castro (head of CDC) The test result was released to Ranida w/o the authorization of Castro (head of CDC).

2. 3.

Garcia may not have intended to cause the consequences which followed after the release of the HBsAG test result. However, his failure to comply with the laws and rules promulgated and issued for the protection of public safety and interest is failure to observe that care which a reasonably prudent health care provider would observe. Thus, his act or omission constitutes a breach of duty. Indubitably, Ranida suffered injury as a direct consequence of Garcias failure to comply with the mandate of the laws and rules aforequoted. She was terminated from the service for failing the physical examination; suffered anxiety because of the diagnosis; and was compelled to undergo several more tests. All these could have been avoided had the proper safeguards been scrupulously followed in conducting the clinical examination and releasing the clinical report. Article 20 of the New Civil Code provides: Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. The foregoing provision provides the legal basis for the award of damages to a party who suffers damage whenever one commits an act in violation of some legal provision.30 This was incorporated by the Code Commission to provide relief to a person who suffers damage because another has violated some legal provision.31

Negligence is the failure to observe for the protection of the interest of another person that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand,20 whereby such other person suffers injury. For health care providers, the test of the existence of negligence is: did the health care provider either fail to do something which a reasonably prudent health care provider would have done, or that he or she did something that a reasonably prudent health care provider would not have done; and that failure or action caused injury to the patient;21 if yes, then he is guilty of negligence. Thus, the elements of an actionable conduct are: 1) duty, 2) breach, 3) injury, and 4) proximate causation. All the elements are present in the case at bar. Owners and operators of clinical laboratories have the duty to comply with statutes, as well as rules and regulations, purposely promulgated to protect and promote the health of the people by preventing the operation of substandard, improperly managed and inadequately supported clinical laboratories and by improving the quality of performance of clinical laboratory examinations. 22 Their business is impressed with public interest, as such, high standards of performance are expected from them. Violation of a statutory duty is negligence. Where the law imposes upon a person the duty to do something, his omission or nonperformance will render him liable to whoever may be injured thereby.

SANDOVAL MAE DLSU-LAW TORTS and DAMAGES