G.R. No. 177407; February 9, 2011
RICO ROMMEL ATIENZA, Petitioner, vs. BOARD OF MEDICINE and EDITHA SIOSON, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Editha Sioson underwent a kidney operation in September 1999 at Rizal Medical Center after diagnostic tests revealed her left kidney was non-functioning. On February 18, 2000, a complaint for gross negligence and/or incompetence was filed with the Board of Medicine (BOM) against the doctors involved, including petitioner Rico Rommel Atienza, alleging the removal of her functional right kidney instead of the left. During the BOM proceedings, after complainant Romeo Sioson presented evidence, Editha Sioson filed a formal offer of documentary evidence (Exhibits “A” to “D”), consisting of certified photocopies of X-ray request forms dated 1996, 1997, and 1999, offered to prove her kidneys were in their proper anatomical locations at the time of the operation. Petitioner Atienza filed comments/objections, arguing the exhibits were inadmissible as mere photocopies, not properly identified and authenticated, hearsay, and incompetent to prove their purpose. The BOM admitted the exhibits per its Order dated May 26, 2004, stating they were admitted “for whatever purpose they may serve.” Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in an Order dated October 8, 2004. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the BOM Orders, which the CA dismissed for lack of merit. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

1. Procedural: Whether petitioner availed of the proper remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to assail the interlocutory orders of the BOM.
2. Substantive: Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in upholding the BOM’s admission of allegedly incompetent and inadmissible evidence.

RULING

1. On the procedural issue, the Supreme Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was the proper remedy. The assailed BOM Orders were interlocutory and could not be appealed separately from the final judgment. In the absence of an appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, certiorari was the remaining remedy to question the orders on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
2. On the substantive issue, the Supreme Court found no reversible error. It ruled that the rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative bodies like the BOM. The Court emphasized a policy of liberality in admitting evidence unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial, or incompetent, as rejection on doubtful grounds could place relevant evidence beyond consideration, whereas admission can later be remedied by discarding it if found incompetent. The BOM did not act with grave abuse of discretion in admitting the exhibits for whatever purpose they may serve, as it could determine their probative value when deciding the case. The distinction between admissibility and probative value was noted; the BOM’s admission did not preclude a later determination on the weight of the evidence. The writ of certiorari did not lie absent a showing that the BOM acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The petition was denied.