DR. BATIQUIN vs.

CA

G.R. No. 118231 (July 5, 1996)

This case involves a simple caesarean section performed on Mrs. Villegas by Dr. Batiquin. After the
operation, Mrs. Flotilde Villegas complained of abdominal pains, being feverish and loss of appetite, to
which Dr. Batiquin prescribed medications. When the pains and the fever persisted, Mrs. Vilegas went to
see another doctor, Dr. Kho, who prescribed a second surgery. When her abdomen was opened, a
whitish-yellow discharge was found inside, an ovarian cyst on each of the left and right ovaries, and a
piece of rubber material embedded in the ovarian cyst, which looked like a rubber glove.

However, the piece of rubber was not presented in court, and was also not presented in the pathologist
report. Thus, the trial court regarded the documentary evidence mentioning the piece of rubber as mere
hearsay, also refused to give weight to her testimony (she ‘threw away’ the rubber). CA however
reversed, saying that Dr Kho’s positive testimony definitely established that a piece of rubber was found
near Mrs. Villegas’ uterus.

Issue: W/N the negligence of Dr. Batiquin has been established despite the non-presentation of the
piece of rubber found inside the body of the patient.

Ruling: Yes. (Court here gave weight to positive testimony of) Dr. Kho that she found a piece of rubber
near Mrs. Villegas’ uterus, against the mere denials/negative testimony of Dr. Batiquin, i.e. that no
rubber drain was used in the operation, nor any tear on Dr. Batiquin’s gloves. We-settled is the rule that
positive testimony is stronger than negative testimony. Also found Dr. Kho as a credible witness (was
frank throughout her testimony, no motive to state any untruth). Her positive testimony that a piece of
rubber was found prevails over the negative testimony in favor of the petitioners.

Court applied doctrine of res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself) which states that: “Where the
thing which causes injury is shown to be under the management of the defendant, and the accient is
such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have the management use proper
care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident
arose from want of care”. The doctrine as a rule of evidence is peculiar to the law of negligence which
recognizes that prima facie negligence may be established without direct proof and furnishes a
substitute for specific proof of negligence. The doctrine is not a rule of substantive law, but merely a
mode of proof or a mere procedural convenience. It is not intended to and does not dispense with the
requirement of proof of culpable negligence on the party charged. It merely determines and regulates
what shall be prima facie evidence thereof and facilitates the burden of plaintiff of proving a breach of
the duty of due care. The doctrine can be invoked when and only when, under the circumstances
involved, direct evidence is absent and not readily available.

Here, all the requsites for recourse to the doctrine are present. First, the entire proceedings of the
caesarean section were under the exclusive control of Dr. Batiquin. Second, aside from the caesarean
section, Mrs. Villegas underwent no other operation which could have caused the offending piece of
rubber to appear in her uterus. The petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of negligence arising
from resort to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Dr. Batiquin is therefore liable for negligently leaving
behind a piece of rubber in private respondent Villegas’ abdomen and for all the adverse effects thereof.