Professional Documents
Culture Documents
17 - Reyes v. Sisters of Mercy Hospital Digest
17 - Reyes v. Sisters of Mercy Hospital Digest
HELD
SUPREME COURT held that there was no liability on the part of the doctors (Dr. Rico, and Dr. Blanes), nurse Pagente, and
Mercy Community Clinic in the performance of their duties in taking care of the patient (Jorge Reyes).
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner presented the testimony of Dr. Apolinar Valcares, as expert testimony, which states that Jorge did not die of
typhoid fever. Even stated that, he had not seen a patient die of typhoid fever within five days from onset of the
disease. (Dr. Valcares did not examine the brain of the patient)
Respondent presented the testimonies of Dr. Peter Gotiong and Dr. Ibarra Ponopio, as expert testimonies. Dr. Gotiong
stated that according to the patients history and positive Widal Test results, Jorge indeed had typhoid fever. The
gastrointestinal tract of the patient is irrelevant as the toxic effect of typhoid fever may be microscopic and that instead
Dr. Valcares should have examined the brain of the patient in his autopsy as typhoid fever may lead to meningitis. As
such, the autopsy of the patient was incomplete and inconclusive. Dr. Ponopio stated that Widal Test had been used in
the industry for its greater reliability that other tests, and he agreed with Dr. Gotiong.
RULING
RTC: Absolved RESPONDENTS from charges of negligence and dismissing the complaint
CA: Affirmed the ruling of RTC
SUPREME COURT:
Jorges death was not due to negligence, carelessness, imprudence, and lack of skill or foresight
While it is true that Jorge died a couple of hours after professional medical assistance was administered, there
was nothing extraordinary with his death.
It was established that prior to his admission, he had been suffering from recurring fevers and chills for FIVE
days. As such, this shows that he had been suffering from a serious illness and professional medical help came
too late for him.
Respondent doctors and clinics alleged failure to observe due care was not immediately apparent to a layman as
to justify the application of res ipsa loquitur.
Dr. Ricos diagnosis had no presumption of negligence. Dr. Rico is not bound to explain why any particular
diagnosis is not correct.
Dr. Valcares testimony as an expert witness is not reliable as the court found that he is not a specialist on
infectious diseases like typhoid fever. He even admitted that he had yet to conduct an autopsy of typhoid victims
at the time he conducted the autopsy on Jorges body.
Dr. Rico is correct in recommending the administration of the drug choloromycetin nor was Dr. Blanes was
incorrect in ordering the drugs administration.
As regards to the claim of anaphylactic shock, the law cannot require the respondents to predict every possible
reaction to all drugs administered to a patient. As such, it would not yet establish the negligence of the physicians
in question.
As for the degree of diligence, the practice of medicine is a profession engaged in only by qualified individuals. It
is a right earned through years of education, training, and by first obtaining a license from the state through
professional board examinations. Such license may, at any time and for cause, be revoked by the government. In
addition to state regulation, the conduct of doctors is also strictly governed by the Hippocratic Oath, an ancient
code of discipline and ethical rules which doctors have imposed upon themselves in recognition and acceptance
of their great responsibility to society. Given these safeguards, there is no need to expressly require of doctors the
observance of extraordinary diligence. As it is now, the practice of medicine is already conditioned upon the
highest degree of diligence. The standard contemplated for doctors is simply the reasonable average merit among
ordinarily good physicians. That is reasonable diligence for doctors or, the reasonable skill and competence that a
physician in the same or similar locality should apply.
Doctrine Notes
Action for Medical Malpractice
Is a particular form of negligence which consists in the failure of a
physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of
care and skill which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally,
under similar conditions, and in like surrounding circumstances. In order
to successfully pursue such a claim, a patient must prove that the
physician or surgeon either failed to do something which a reasonably
prudent physician or surgeon would have done, or that he or she did
something that a reasonably prudent physician or surgeon would not have
done, and that the failure or action caused injury to the patient.