REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH 88, TAGUIG CITY

MARIA CHARINA V. DE OFALSA,

Plaintiff,
- versus -

Civil Case No. __________

Dr. DANNICA B. DILIG,

Dr. JOSE F. DIOMAMPA,
Dr. ANTHONY T. BIERNES, and
DDASIAN HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL
CENTER,
Defendants.
x-----------------------------------------------x

COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF, by and through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully alleges:
1.

Plaintiff is of legal age, married, Filipino citizen and with residence and

postal address at No. 108, M.L. Quezon St., Hagonoy, Taguig City. She may be
served with copies of pleadings, notices and other court processes through the
undersigned counsel and/or law firm at the address indicated below.
2.

Defendant Dr. Dannica B. Dilig (Dilig, for brevity) is, as far as plaintiff

knows, of legal age and with office address at Rms. 202-203, Dasian Hospital and
Medical Center, Muntinlupa City, where she may be served with summons and other
court processes.

3.

Defendant Dr. Jose F. Diomampa (Diomampa, for brevity) is, as far as

plaintiff knows, of legal age and with office address at c/o Dasian Hospital and
Medical Center, Muntinlupa City, where he may be served with summons and other
court processes.
4.

Defendant Dr. Anthony T. Biernes (Biernes, for brevity) is, as far as

plaintiff knows, of legal age and with office address at the Office of the Medical
Director, Dasian Hospital and Medical Center, Muntinlupa City, where he may be
served with summons and other court processes. He is impleaded herein in his
capacity as the Medical Director of Dasian Hospital and Medical Center.
5.

Defendant Dasian Hospital and Medical Center (DHMC, for brevity) is,

as far as plaintiff knows, a hospital and a corporation organized and existing under
Philippine laws, with principal place of business at The Dasian Hospital and Medical
Center, Muntinlupa City, where it may be served with summons and other court
processes.
6.

Sometime in December 2011, plaintiff consulted defendant Dilig and in

the course of said consultations, the latter diagnosed plaintiff to have an ovarian cyst
and recommended that plaintiff should undergo a surgical procedure called ovarian
cyst removal. Thus, on 31 December 2011, defendants Dilig and Diomampa
performed an ovarian cyst removal on plaintiff.
7.

However, in the course of said surgical procedure, the plaintiffs urinary

bladder was perforated but the same was not noticed or detected by the defendants
during the post operation inspection. Such perforation was not a part of the ovarian
cyst removal procedure.
8.

Consequently, a few days after the operation, plaintiff started to

complain of excruciating and severe pain, difficulty in breathing, inability to properly

eat and sleep, as well as the bloating of her stomach. Despite her condition,

defendant Dilig callously demanded for full payment of her professional fees and
immediately left for Malaysia. This was surprising because patients normally settle
their bills when they are about to be discharged. Before defendant Dilig left, she
diagnosed plaintiffs condition as gastro-intestinal in nature and turned over the
plaintiff to a certain Dr. Novenario, a gastroenterologist.
9.

Plaintiff was then subjected to several tests and procedures, only to

find out later that her problem was not gastro intestinal. By then, however, the
condition of plaintiff had seriously deteriorated. During this time, plaintiff was forced
to undergo difficult, painful, distressing but USELESS procedures. For instance,
plaintiff had to undergo several prolonged fleet enemas and bear the pain and
discomfort of NGT, all of which did not, in any way, improve her condition because
the real problem, as it turned out, was not gastro intestinal in nature. In short,
plaintiff was made to suffer unnecessarily and in vain.
10.

In fairness to Dr. Novenario, he did not bill plaintiff for his services,

mindful of the fact that the gastro-related tests and procedures were completely
unnecessary and useless.
11.

It was only after eight (8) long, distressing days and sleepless nights

that the perforation of her urinary bladder was discovered, at which time, there were
already about 5.5 liters of urine trapped in plaintiffs abdomen. It was determined
that the root cause of the accumulated urine in the abdomen was a 0.5 x 0.5 cm
perforation in her urinary bladder, which was, in turn, caused by the negligence of
defendants Dilig and Diomampa while performing the ovarian cyst removal
procedure.
12.

Interestingly, previous laboratory test results four days after the

operation indicated moderate ascitis, which should have alerted the defendants as
to the presence of trapped urine inside plaintiffs body. Likewise, defendants never
considered or thought of closely monitoring the volume of plaintiffs urine output after

the operation. Thus, defendants remained oblivious as to the nature and cause of
plaintiffs worsening condition.
13.

The overall treatment accorded plaintiff was far from efficient and

reassuring. For instance, nobody even bothered to inform plaintiff as regards the
schedule of giving medicines. The hospital personnel could not even properly insert
plaintiffs I.V. and the spinal tap procedure was never explained to her. They just
proceeded with the spinal tap procedure, unmindful and insensitive to the extreme
pain experienced by plaintiff.
14.

As a result of the perforation of plaintiffs urinary bladder, the latter had

to undergo a second and corrective operation to repair the perforation therein and to
disinfect her body cavity, thereby resulting in further expenses, prolonged
confinement, mental anguish and physical suffering, all because of the gross
negligence of defendants Dilig and Diomampa.
15.

Thereafter, plaintiff caused the sending of separate letters to all the

defendants, asking them to communicate with plaintiffs counsel for the purpose of
settling the damage caused to the plaintiff by reason of the negligence and
malpractice on the part of the defendants DHMC, Dilig and Diomampa.
A copy of the letter sent to defendant Dilig is attached hereto as Annex A; a
copy of the letter sent to defendant Diomampa is attached hereto as Annex B; and
a copy of the letter sent to defendant DHMC is attached hereto as Annex C, all of
which are made integral parts hereof.
16.

However, instead of heeding the polite demands of plaintiff, defendant

DHMC, acting through defendant Biernes and its counsel, arrogantly refused to
entertain plaintiffs just demands in a letter dated 18 March 2012, and even
practically dared plaintiff and her counsel to take legal steps. A copy of said letter is
attached hereto as Annex D and made an integral part hereof.

17.

As regards defendants Dilig and Diomampa, both of them simply

ignored plaintiffs demands. Thus, a reiteratory letter, dated 20 April 2012, was sent
to said defendants. However, despite receipt thereof, defendants Dilig and
Diomampa again decided to ignore the same.
Copies of said reiteratory letters are attached hereto as Annexes E and F
and are made an integral part hereof.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

18.

Defendants are liable for breach of contract.

19.

Plaintiff decided to undergo a surgical procedure called ovarian cyst

removal upon the recommendation of defendant Dilig. It was understood, and far
from the expectations of plaintiff, that after the operation plaintiff would become well
and not suffer from a perforated urinary bladder. In other words, there was an
implied contract between plaintiff and defendants, whereby plaintiffs ovarian cyst
would be removed in consideration of the payment of professional fees and the cost
of the medicines, laboratory tests and hospitalization.
In the process of removing the ovarian cyst, the defendants had the implied
duty and obligation to exercise utmost care and diligence in order to prevent
untoward incidents, like a perforated urinary bladder, from happening. This, the
defendants failed to do.
20.

Obviously, the procedure was done improperly and in a grossly

negligent manner, as shown by the result, i.e., a perforated urinary bladder in the
course of removing an ovarian cyst.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

21.

Apart from any contract, defendants are also liable for tort or quasi-

delict. A physician has a duty to his or her patient to exercise the required degree of
care, skill and diligence in providing treatment and alleviating the sufferings of his or
her patient.
22. A physician has the duty to possess knowledge and skill required by his
profession and must utilize such knowledge and skill with the necessary care and
diligence. In contravention of these duties, however, defendants exhibited lack of
skill and knowledge and were evidently guilty of gross negligence. Such lack of skill
and want of care and gross negligence directly caused serious injuries to the plaintiff
and resulted in substantial expenses on her part.
23. Defendants Biernes and DHMC are liable for quasi-delict because they
are the employers of defendants Dilig and Diomampa, in legal contemplation.
Likewise, DHMC acting through defendant Biernes, its Medical Director, is the owner
and/or manager of the hospital wherein the negligent acts were committed.
Defendants Biernes and DHMC allowed defendants Dilig and Diomampa to perform
a surgical procedure that said defendants were not capable of handling. As a result,
they failed to prevent the damage, injury and unnecessary expenses suffered by
plaintiff.

DAMAGES
24.

As a result of defendants breach of contract and/or negligence

constituting quasi-delict, they are liable to plaintiff for damages.

25.

Because of the incident, plaintiff has had to undergo an additional

operation and incur additional expenses, thereby unnecessarily incurring expenses

in the amount of not less than PhP 300,000.00.

26.

Plaintiff is a busy businesswoman but because of what happened, she

had to stop working for weeks thereby losing potential income in the amount of at
least PhP 500,000.00, representing cancelled transactions and unrealized profits.
27.

Plaintiff was compelled to file this case because of defendants

obstinate and unjustified refusal to take responsibility for their actions. Her polite
demands were arrogantly ignored. Thus, she had no other recourse but to hire a
lawyer and pursue legal action. In the process, she will be spending for attorneys
fees in the amount of at least PhP 500,000.00 and other legal expenses in the
amount of at least PhP 100,000.00.
28.

In addition to the physical injuries and pain, plaintiff has also suffered

and is still suffering from constant physical discomfort in the abdomen, mental
anguish, severe anxiety and psychological torture caused by the incident. She felt
violated, deceived and betrayed by defendants because she had entrusted her wellbeing to them but instead they caused her pain and injury. She has been suffering
from sleepless nights, tormented by the memory of the botched procedure and the
drain in her financial resources which could have been avoided, thereby entitling her
to moral damages in the amount of, at least, PhP 400,000.00.
29. Defendants actions are deleterious to society. They set a bad example
not only to their fellow physicians but also to other professionals in the service and
medical field. Therefore, by way of example and correction for the public good,
defendants should be made to pay, at least, PhP 200,000.00 as and by way of
exemplary damages.

RELIEFS
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed of
this Honorable Court that after due notice and hearing, judgment be rendered:

(1)

Ordering defendants to pay, jointly and severally, unto the plaintiff the

amount of PhP 800,000.00, by way of actual and compensatory damages; the

amount of PhP 400,000.00, by way of moral damages; the amount of PhP
200,000.00, by way of exemplary damages; the amount of PhP 500,000.00, by way
of attorneys fees; the amount of PhP 100,000.00, as litigation expenses; and to pay
the costs of suit.
(2)

Other just and equitable reliefs are, likewise, prayed for.

Pasig City, for Taguig City, 12 May 2007.

ORTEGA AND ORTEGA

Counsel for Plaintiff
Unit 2202-A, West Tektite Tower, PSE Center, Exchange Road,
Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines.
By:

JURIS PAZ Q. ORTEGA

PTR No. 3670982; 01.17.07; Pasig City
IBP Lifetime Reg. No. 03344; Albay Chapter
Roll No. 34161

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, MARIA CHARINA V. DE OFALSA, hereby state under oath: That I am the plaintiff in the
above-entitled case. I caused the preparation of the foregoing Complaint; that I have read and
understood the same; and that the allegations therein are based on my own personal knowledge
and/or based on available and authentic case records.
I HEREBYCERTIFY that, I have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of my knowledge, no
other action or claim is pending therein. If I should learn that the same or similar action has been
filed or is pending, I undertake to report that fact within five (5) days from notice.
Taguig City, ___ May 2012.

MARIA CHARINA V. DE OFALSA

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___ day of May 2012, at Taguig City.
Affiant exhibited to me her Community Tax Certificate No. ________________, issued on
_______________, at __________________.

Doc. No. _____

Page No. _____
Book No. _____
Series of 2007.