SECOND
DIVISION
|
CONCEPCION ILAO-ORETA, Petitioner, - versus - SPOUSES EVA MARIE and BENEDICTO NOEL RONQUILLO, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 172406 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: October 11, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Respondents, spouses Eva Marie Ronquillo
(Eva Marie) and Noel Benedicto (Noel) Ronquillo (the Ronquillo spouses or the spouses), had not been blessed
with a child despite several years of marriage.
They thus consulted petitioner, Dr. Concepcion Ilao-Oreta (Dr.
Ilao-Oreta), an obstetrician-gynecologist-consultant at the St. Luke’s
Upon Dr. Ilao-Oreta’s advice, Eva Marie
agreed to undergo a laparoscopic procedure whereby a laparascope
would be inserted through the patient’s abdominal wall to get a direct view of her
internal reproductive organ in order to determine the real cause of her infertility.
The procedure was scheduled on
Dr. Ilao-Oreta
did not arrive at the scheduled time for the procedure, however, and no prior
notice of its cancellation was received.
It turned out that the doctor was on a return flight from
On
In her Answer,[3] Dr.
Ilao-Oreta gave her side of the case as follows: She went on a honeymoon to
In its Answer,[4]
the St. Luke’s
By Decision[5] of
P9,939 and costs of suit.
It found no adequate proof that Noel had been deprived of any job
contract while attending to his wife in the hospital.
On appeal by the spouses, the Court
of Appeals, by Decision[6] of
WHEREFORE, the trial Court’s decision dated March 9, 2001 is affirmed, subject to the modification that the amount of actual damages, for which both defendants-appellees are jointly and severally liable to plaintiffs-appellants, is increased to P16,069.40. Furthermore, defendant-appellee Dr. Ilao-Oreta is also held liable to pay plaintiff-appellants the following:
(a) P50,000.00 as moral damages;
(b) P25,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
(c) P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED.[8] (Underscoring supplied)
Hence, the present Petition for
Review[9] of
Dr. Ilao-Oreta raising the following arguments:
The court a quo erred in finding petitioner to
have acted with gross negligence and awarding moral damages to respondents.[10]
The court a quo erred in awarding Exemplary
Damages to respondents.[11]
The court a quo [erred] in awarding Attorney’s
Fees to respondents.[12]
The court a quo erred in increasing the award
of actual damages in favor of respondents.[13]
“Gross negligence” implies a want or
absence of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or the entire
absence of care. It evinces a
thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid
them.[14] It is characterized by want of even slight
care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act,
not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference
to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected.[15]
The records show that before leaving
for
The records also show that on
realizing that she missed the scheduled procedure, Dr. Ilao-Oreta,
upon arrival in
[ATTY SINJAN] Q: So, can you tell us the reason why you missed that operation?
[DR. ILAO-ORETA] A: When I scheduled her for the surgery, I looked at my ticket and so I was to leave Hawaii on April 4 at around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon, so I was computing 12 hours of travel including stop-over, then probably I would be in Manila early morning of April 5, then I have so much time and I can easily do the case at 2:00 o’clock, you know it skipped my mind the change in time.
Q: So
when you arrived at
A: I
called immediately the hospital and I talked with the nurses, I asked about
the patient, Mrs. Ronquillo, and they told me that she has already left at
around
Q: And after calling the hospital, what happened?
A: I
wanted to call the plaintiffs, but I didn’t have their number at that time,
so in the morning I went to my office early at
Q: Were you able to contact them?
A: I was able to reach Mr. Ronquillo.
Q: In the course of your conversation, what did you tell Mr. Ronquillo?
A: I apologized to him, I said I was sorry about the time that I missed the surgery, and I told him that I can do the case right that same day without Mrs. Ronquillo having to undergo another [b]arium enema.
Q: What else did you tell him, if any?
A: I asked him whether I can talk with Mrs. Ronquillo because I wanted to apologize to her personally.
Q: And what did he say?
A: I could hear on the background that Mrs. Ronquillo was shouting angrily that she didn’t want to talk to me, and that she didn’t want re-scheduling of the surgery . . .
ATTY LONTOK: May we move, your Honor, for the striking out of the answer, this is purely hearsay.
COURT: Remain on the record.
WITNESS [DR. ILAO-ORETA]: . . . and then Mr. Ronquillo told me “I’m sorry, Dra., we cannot re-schedule the surgery.”[17] (Underscoring supplied)
Noel admitted that indeed Dr. Ilao-Oreta called him up after she arrived in
The evidence then shows that Dr. Ilao-Oreta, who had traveled more than twice to the
The doctor’s act did not, however,
reflect gross negligence as defined above. Her argument that
Although
petitioner failed to take into consideration the time difference between the
thus persuades.
It bears noting that when she was
scheduling the date of her performance of the procedure, Dr. Ilao-Oreta had just gotten married and was preparing for
her honeymoon,[20] and it is
of common human knowledge that excitement attends its preparations. Her negligence could then be partly
attributed to human frailty which rules out its characterization as gross.
The doctor’s negligence not being
gross, the spouses are not entitled to recover moral damages.
Neither are the spouses entitled to
recover exemplary damages in the absence of a showing that Dr. Ilao-Oreta acted
in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner,[21]
nor to award of attorney’s fees as, contrary to the finding of the Court of
Appeals that the spouses “were compelled to litigate and incur expenses to
protect their interest,”[22] the
records show that they did not exert enough efforts to settle the matter before
going to court. Eva Marie herself
testified:
ATTY. SINJIAN:
Q: Isn’t it true that before instituting this present case, you did not make any demand on Dr. Ilao-Oreta regarding the claims which you have allegedly incurred, because of the failed laparoscopic surgery operation?
A [EVA MARIE]: I will tell the truth. Dr. Augusto Reyes of St. Luke’s . . .
Q: But did you demand?
A: No, I did not demand because…
ATTY. SINJIAN: That will be all, your Honor.
ATTY. LONTOK: The witness is still explaining.
WITNESS: I’m explaining first. Dr. Augusto Reyes told me that he will hold the meeting for me and Dr. Oreta to settle things and reimburse all the money that I spent from the hospital, and he even suggested Dr. Oreta to personally talk to me.
ATTY. SINJIAN:
Q: So it was to Dr. Augusto Reyes that you talked?
A: Yes.
Q: But you did not demand anything or write to Dr. Oreta?
A: No.
Q: Before instituting this case?
A: No.[23] (Underscoring supplied)
Finally,
Dr. Ilao-Oreta’s prayer for the reduction of actual damages is well-taken. Article 2201 of the Civil Code provides:
In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who acted in good faith is liable shall be those which are the natural and probable consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.
In fixing the amount of
actual damages, the Court of Appeals and the trial court included expenses
which the spouses incurred prior to P300 spent on fuel consumption from the spouses’ residence at San
Pascual, Batangas to the St. Luke’s P500 spent on
food in the hospital canteen, both of which are unsubstantiated by independent
or competent proof.[25] The only piece of documentary evidence
supporting the food and fuel expenses is an unsigned listing.[26] As the fuel and food expenses are not
adequately substantiated, they cannot be included in the computation of the
amount of actual damages. So Premiere Development Bank v. Court of Appeals[27]
instructs:
In the instant case, the actual damages were proven through the sole testimony of Themistocles Ruguero, the vice president for administration of Panacor. In his testimony, the witness affirmed that Panacor incurred losses, specifically, in terms of training and seminars, leasehold acquisition, procurement of vehicles and office equipment without, however, adducing receipts to substantiate the same. The documentary evidence marked as Exhibit “W,” which was an ordinary private writing allegedly itemizing the capital expenditures and losses from the failed operation of Panacor, was not testified to by any witness to ascertain the veracity of its content. Although the lower court fixed the sum of P4,520,000.00 as the total expenditures incurred by Panacor, it failed to show how and in what manner the same were substantiated by the claimant with reasonable certainty. Hence, the claim for actual damages should be received with extreme caution since it is only based on bare assertion without support from independent evidence. Premiere’s failure to prove actual expenditure consequently conduces to a failure of its claim. In determining actual damages, the court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding the actual amount of loss.[28] (Underscoring supplied)
The list of expenses
cannot replace receipts when they should have been issued as a matter of course
in business transactions[29]
as in the case of purchase of gasoline and of food.
The
documented claim for hospital and medical expenses of the spouses is detailed
in the Statement of Account issued by the hospital, the pertinent entries of
which read:
x x x x
RECEIPT (5,000.00)
(5,000.00)
________
FLOOR HINOX 500 MG CAP
SECOND 0284894 UNUSED MED 0439893 (62.25)
FLOOR PHENERGAN 2 ML
50MG ______
(127.80)
BALANCE DUE (2,711.30)[30]
=======
As extrapolated from the
above-quoted entries in the Statement of Account, P2,288.70
(the gross hospital charges of P2,416.50 less the unused medicine in the
amount of P127.80) was debited from the P5,000 deposit[31]
to thus leave a balance of the deposit in the amount of P2,711.30, which
the trial court erroneously denominated as “confinement fee.” The remaining balance of P2,711.30 was the amount refundable to the spouses.
Following Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[32]
this Court awards interest on the actual damages to be paid by Dr. Ilao-Oreta at the rate of 6% per annum from the time
of the filing of the complaint on
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
decision appealed from is MODIFIED in that
1) the award to respondents-spouses Noel and Eva
Marie Ronquillo of actual damages is REDUCED to P2,288.70, to bear
interest at a rate of 6% per annum from the time of the filing of the
complaint on May 18, 1999 and, upon finality of this judgment, at the rate of
12% per annum until satisfaction; and
2.
The
award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees is DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate
Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Records, pp. 1-8.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Penned by Court of
Appeals Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with the concurrence of
Associate Justices Josefina Guevarra-Salonga and Sesinando E. Villon. CA rollo, pp.
202-212.
[7]
[8]
[9] Rollo,
pp. 8-23.
[10]
[11]
[12] Ibid.
[13]
[14] Phil. Aeolus Automotive United Corporation v. NLRC, 387 Phil.
250, 263 (2000).
[15] De la Victoria v. Mongaya, 404 Phil.
609, 619-620 (2001).
[16] TSN, April 10, 2000, p. 25; TSN, June 26, 2000, p. 20; Records, pp. 229, 232-253, 262.
[17] TSN,
[18] TSN,
[19] Rollo, pp.
13-14.
[20] TSN, February 7, 2000, pp. 2-5; TSN,
[21] Civil Code, Article 2232: “In contracts and quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary damages if the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.”
[22] CA rollo, p.
211.
[23] TSN,
[24] Rollo, pp.
21-22; CA rollo, p. 210; Records, pp. 162-166, 171, 198, 205, 264; TSN,
December 6, 1999, pp. 18-21; TSN, June
26, 2000, pp. 7-16.
[25] Records, p. 190. Vide
Article 2199, Civil Code: “Except as
provided by law or stipulation, one is entitled to an adequate compensation
only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. x x x"
[26]
[27] G.R. No. 159352,
[28]
[29] People v. Matore, 436 Phil. 421, 433 (2002).
[30] Records, p. 175.
[31]
[32] G.R. No. 97412,