GR 118231; (July, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118231 July 5, 1996
DR. VICTORIA L. BATIQUIN and ALLAN BATIQUIN, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES QUEDO D. ACOGIDO and FLOTILDE G. VILLEGAS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Dr. Victoria Batiquin performed a caesarean section on respondent Flotilde Villegas at the Negros Oriental Provincial Hospital on September 21, 1988. After discharge, Villegas suffered persistent abdominal pain, fever, and weight loss. She consulted Dr. Ma. Salud Kho in January 1989, who, upon performing a second surgery, allegedly discovered a piece of rubber material (described as resembling a piece of a rubber glove or drain) embedded near Villegas’s uterus, which was the cause of a severe infection. The piece of rubber itself was not presented in court. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint for damages, ruling that the respondents failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that the foreign body was left by Dr. Batiquin, noting the rubber was not presented and some documentary evidence was hearsay.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court and holding Dr. Batiquin liable for negligence based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding Dr. Batiquin liable for negligence. The Court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which holds that negligence may be presumed when the injury-causing event is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence, the instrumentality causing the injury was within the exclusive control of the defendant, and the injury did not result from any voluntary action or contribution by the plaintiff. All conditions were met: a foreign body like a piece of rubber glove does not ordinarily remain in a patient’s abdomen after a caesarean section without negligence; the instrumentalities (surgical tools and gloves) were under the exclusive control of Dr. Batiquin and her surgical team during the operation; and Villegas was under general anesthesia, precluding any contribution on her part. The Court found the testimonial and documentary evidence, including Dr. Kho’s testimony and the supporting hospital records, sufficient to establish the presence of the foreign body and its causal connection to the infection. The failure to present the physical rubber piece went to its weight, not its admissibility, and did not negate the consistent evidence that it was found and removed. The presumption of negligence under res ipsa loquitur, unrebutted by Dr. Batiquin, established her liability.