MARITER MENDOZA, G.R. No. 197987
Petitioner,
Present:
VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
- versus - PERALTA,
ABAD,
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
ADRIANO CASUMPANG,
JENNIFER ADRIANE and
JOHN ANDRE, all surnamed Promulgated:
CASUMPANG,
Respondents. March 19, 2012
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD,
J.:
Josephine
Casumpang, substituted by her respondent husband Adriano and their children
Jennifer Adriane and John Andre, filed an action for damages against petitioner
Dr. Mariter Mendoza in 1993 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
On
February 13, 1993 Josephine underwent hysterectomy and myomectomy that Dr.
Mendoza performed on her at the Iloilo Doctors Hospital. After her operation, Josephine experienced
recurring fever, nausea, and vomiting. Three
months after the operation, she noticed while taking a bath something
protruding from her genital. She tried
calling Dr. Mendoza to report it but the latter was unavailable. Josephine instead went to see another
physician, Dr. Edna Jamandre-Gumban, who extracted a foul smelling, partially
expelled rolled gauze from her cervix.
The
discovery of the gauze and the illness she went through prompted Josephine to
file a damage suit against Dr. Mendoza before the RTC of Iloilo City. Because Josephine died before trial could end,
her husband and their children substituted her in the case. She was a housewife and 40 years old when she
died.
On
March 7, 2005 the RTC rendered judgment, finding Dr. Mendoza guilty of neglect
that caused Josephines illness and eventual death and ordering her to pay
plaintiffs heirs actual damages of P50,000.00, moral damages of P200,000.00,
and attorneys fees of P20,000.00 plus costs of suit.
On
motion for reconsideration, however, the RTC reversed itself and dismissed the
complaint in an order dated June 23, 2005.
On
appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered a decision on March 18, 2011,[1]
reinstating the RTCs original decision.
The CA held that Dr. Mendoza committed a breach of her duty as a physician
when a gauze remained in her patients body after surgery. The CA denied her motion for reconsideration on
July 18, 2011, prompting her to file the present petition.
Petitioner
claims that no gauze or surgical material was left in Josephines body after her
surgery as evidenced by the surgical sponge count in the hospital record.
But she raises at this Courts
level a question of fact when parties may raise only questions of law before it
in petitions for review on certiorari from the CA. With few exceptions, the factual
findings of the latter court are generally binding. None of those exceptions applies to this case.[2]
As the RTC pointed out, Josephine
did not undergo any other surgical operation. And it would be much unlikely for her or for
any woman to inject a roll of gauze into her cervix. As the Court held in Professional Services, Inc. v.
An operation requiring the placing of sponges in the
incision is not complete until the sponges are properly removed, and it is
settled that the leaving of sponges or other foreign substances in the wound
after the incision has been closed is at least prima facie negligence by the operating surgeon. To put it simply, such act is considered so
inconsistent with due care as to raise an inference of negligence. There are even legions of authorities to the
effect that such act is negligence per se.
The
Court notes, however, that neither the CA nor the RTC awarded exemplary damages
against Dr. Mendoza when, under Article 2229 of the Civil Code, exemplary
damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in
addition to moral damages. Exemplary
damages may also be awarded in cases of gross negligence.[4]
A
surgical operation is the responsibility of the surgeon performing it. He must personally ascertain that the counts
of instruments and materials used before the surgery and prior to sewing the
patient up have been correctly done. To
provide an example to the medical profession and to stress the need for
constant vigilance in attending to a patients health, the award of exemplary
damages in this case is in order.
Further,
in view of Josephines death resulting from petitioners negligence, civil
indemnity under Article 2206[5] of
the Civil Code should be given to respondents as heirs. The amount of P50,000.00 is fixed by
prevailing jurisprudence for this kind.[6]
The Court also deems it just and
equitable under Article 2208 of the Civil Code to increase the award of
attorneys fees from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Court entirely AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of
Appeals dated March 18, 2011 with the MODIFICATION
ordering petitioner Mariter Mendoza to pay respondents Adriano, Jennifer
Adriane and John Andre, all surnamed Casumpang, an additional P50,000.00
as exemplary damages, additional P30,000.00 as attorneys fees and civil
indemnity arising from death in the amount of P50,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M.
PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Portia Alio-Hormachuelos with the
concurrence of Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Socorro B. Inting, rollo, pp. 30-43.
[2]
The Insular Life Assurance
Company, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126850, April 28, 2004, 428
SCRA 79, 85-86.
[3]
G.R. No. 126297, January 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 478, 490.
[4] Civil Code, Article 2231.
[5] Art. 2206. The amount of damages for death caused by a
crime or quasi-delict shall be at
least three thousand pesos, even though there may have been mitigating
circumstances. x x x
[6] Philippine
Hawk Corporation v. Lee, G.R. No. 166869, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 576,
594.