GR 210445; (December, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 210445, December 07, 2015
NILO B. ROSIT, PETITIONER, VS. DAVAO DOCTORS HOSPITAL AND DR. ROLANDO G. GESTUVO, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioner Nilo B. Rosit fractured his jaw in a motorcycle accident and was referred to respondent Dr. Rolando Gestuvo, a mandibular injury specialist at Davao Doctors Hospital. During surgery, Dr. Gestuvo used metal screws he cut to size, knowing that smaller titanium screws were available in Manila but not informing Rosit, assuming he could not afford them. Post-operation, Rosit experienced pain and difficulty opening his mouth. An X-ray revealed the screws were touching a molar. A consulted dentist, Dr. Pangan, opined a re-operation was necessary.
Rosit underwent a second surgery in Cebu with Dr. Pangan, who replaced the hardware with proper titanium screws and extracted the affected molar, after which Rosit recovered fully. Rosit demanded reimbursement from Dr. Gestuvo for his expenses, which was refused, leading to a damages suit. The Regional Trial Court found Dr. Gestuvo negligent and awarded damages, applying the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. The Court of Appeals reversed, deleting the awards, holding expert testimony was necessary and res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in absolving Dr. Gestuvo from liability for medical negligence.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court reinstated the RTC decision, finding Dr. Gestuvo liable for medical negligence and for violating the doctrine of informed consent. The Court held that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine was correctly applied by the RTC. This doctrine allows negligence to be inferred when the injury is of a kind that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence, the instrumentality causing injury was within the defendant’s exclusive control, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the injury. Here, the immediate need for a corrective surgery by another doctor shortly after Dr. Gestuvo’s procedure, using the proper implants he knowingly withheld, satisfies these conditions, making expert testimony unnecessary to establish a prima facie case of negligence.
Furthermore, Dr. Gestuvo breached his duty of informed consent. He deliberately concealed the availability of a superior medical option—the titanium screws—based on an unfounded assumption about Rosit’s financial capacity. A physician has a duty to fully disclose all material risks and reasonable alternatives to enable the patient to make an informed decision. By withholding this information, Dr. Gestuvo deprived Rosit of the opportunity to choose the better procedure, thereby acting in bad faith. This breach directly resulted in Rosit’s injury, pain, and subsequent expenses, establishing proximate causation. Consequently, Dr. Gestuvo is liable for actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees.