Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3K views

    Ramos Vs Ca

    Uploaded by

    Ma Ce
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Dr. Hosaka was liable for negligence for arriving over three hours late to the scheduled surgery. 2) Dr. Gutierrez was also liable for negligence for failing to properly evaluate and intubate the patient, Erlinda Ramos, which caused her to become comatose. 3) However, the hospital, De Los Santos Medical Center, was not liable as there was no employer-employee relationship between it and the doctors, and no evidence the hospital failed to provide necessary facilities or staff for the patient's treatment.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ramos Vs Ca

    Uploaded by

    Ma Ce
    3K views6 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Dr. Hosaka was liable for negligence for arriving over three hours late to the scheduled surgery. 2) Dr. Gutierrez was also liable for negligence for failing to properly evaluate and intubate the patient, Erlinda Ramos, which caused her to become comatose. 3) However, the hospital, De Los Santos Medical Center, was not liable as there was no employer-employee relationship between it and the doctors, and no evidence the hospital failed to provide necessary facilities or staff for the patient's treatment.

    Original Title

    ramos vs ca

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Dr. Hosaka was liable for negligence for arriving over three hours late to the scheduled surgery. 2) Dr. Gutierrez was also liable for negligence for failing to properly evaluate and intubate the patient, Erlinda Ramos, which caused her to become comatose. 3) However, the hospital, De Los Santos Medical Center, was not liable as there was no employer-employee relationship between it and the doctors, and no evidence the hospital failed to provide necessary facilities or staff for the patient's treatment.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    3K views6 pages

    Ramos Vs Ca

    Uploaded by

    Ma Ce
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) Dr. Hosaka was liable for negligence for arriving over three hours late to the scheduled surgery. 2) Dr. Gutierrez was also liable for negligence for failing to properly evaluate and intubate the patient, Erlinda Ramos, which caused her to become comatose. 3) However, the hospital, De Los Santos Medical Center, was not liable as there was no employer-employee relationship between it and the doctors, and no evidence the hospital failed to provide necessary facilities or staff for the patient's treatment.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 6

    G.R. NO.

    124354            APRIL 11, 2002

    ROGELIO E. RAMOS and ERLINDA RAMOS, in their own behalf and as natural
    guardians of the minors, ROMMEL RAMOS, ROY RODERICK RAMOS, and RON
    RAYMOND RAMOS, petitioners,

    vs.

    COURT OF APPEALS, DE LOS SANTOS MEDICAL CENTER, DR. ORLINO


    HOSAKA and DR. PERFECTA GUTIERREZ, respondents.

    FACTS:

    Sometime in 1985, petitioner Erlinda Ramos, after seeking professional medical help, was

    advised to undergo an operation for the removal of a stone in her gall bladder (cholecystectomy).

    She was referred to Dr. Hosaka, a surgeon, who agreed to perform the operation on her. The

    operation was scheduled for June 17, 1985 at 9:00 in the morning at private respondent De Los

    Santos Medical Center (DLSMC). Since neither petitioner Erlinda nor her husband, petitioner

    Rogelio, knew of any anesthesiologist, Dr. Hosaka recommended to them the services of Dr.

    Gutierrez.

    Petitioner Erlinda was admitted to the DLSMC the day before the scheduled operation. By 7:30

    in the morning of the following day, petitioner Erlinda was already being prepared for operation.

    Upon the request of petitioner Erlinda, her sister-in-law, Herminda Cruz, who was then Dean of

    the College of Nursing at the Capitol Medical Center, was allowed to accompany her inside the

    operating room.
    At around 9:30 in the morning, Dr. Hosaka had not yet arrived so Dr. Gutierrez tried to get in

    touch with him by phone. Thereafter, Dr. Gutierrez informed Cruz that the operation might be

    delayed due to the late arrival of Dr. Hosaka. In the meantime, the patient, petitioner Erlinda said

    to Cruz, "Mindy, inip na inip na ako, ikuha mo ako ng ibang Doctor."

    By 10:00 in the morning, when Dr. Hosaka was still not around, petitioner Rogelio already

    wanted to pull out his wife from the operating room. He met Dr. Garcia, who remarked that he

    was also tired of waiting for Dr. Hosaka. Dr. Hosaka finally arrived at the hospital at around

    12:10 in the afternoon, or more than three (3) hours after the scheduled operation.

    Cruz, who was then still inside the operating room, heard about Dr. Hosaka’s arrival. While she

    held the hand of Erlinda, Cruz saw Dr. Gutierrez trying to intubate the patient. Cruz heard Dr.

    Gutierrez utter: "ang hirap ma-intubate nito, mali yata ang pagkakapasok. O lumalaki ang

    tiyan." Cruz noticed a bluish discoloration of Erlinda’s nailbeds on her left hand. She (Cruz) then

    heard Dr. Hosaka instruct someone to call Dr. Calderon, another anesthesiologist. When he

    arrived, Dr. Calderon attempted to intubate the patient. The nailbeds of the patient remained

    bluish, thus, she was placed in a trendelenburg position – a position where the head of the patient

    is placed in a position lower than her feet. At this point, Cruz went out of the operating room to

    express her concern to petitioner Rogelio that Erlinda’s operation was not going well.

    Cruz quickly rushed back to the operating room and saw that the patient was still in

    trendelenburg position. At almost 3:00 in the afternoon, she saw Erlinda being wheeled to the

    Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The doctors explained to petitioner Rogelio that his wife had

    bronchospasm. Erlinda stayed in the ICU for a month. She was released from the hospital only
    four months later or on November 15, 1985. Since the ill-fated operation, Erlinda remained in

    comatose condition until she died on August 3, 1999.1

    Petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a civil case for damages against

    private respondents. After due trial, the court a quo rendered judgment in favor of petitioners.

    Essentially, the trial court found that private respondents were negligent in the performance of

    their duties to Erlinda. On appeal by private respondents, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial

    court’s decision and directed petitioners to pay their "unpaid medical bills" to private

    respondents.

    Petitioners filed with this Court a petition for review on certiorari. The private respondents were

    then required to submit their respective comments thereon. On December 29, 1999, this Court

    promulgated the decision which private respondents now seek to be reconsidered.


    ISSUES:

    1. WHETHER OR NOT DR. ORLINO HOSAKA (SURGEON) IS LIABLE FOR


    NEGLIGENCE;

    2. WHETHER OR NOT DR. PERFECTA GUTIERREZ (ANESTHESIOLOGIST) IS


    LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE; AND

    3. WHETHER OR NOT THE HOSPITAL (DELOS SANTOS MEDICAL CENTER) IS


    LIABLE FOR ANY ACT OF NEGLIGENCE COMMITTED BY THEIR VISITING
    CONSULTANT SURGEON AND ANESTHESIOLOGIST.8
    RULING:

    In the case at bar, the following issues were resolved as follows:

    1) Dr. Hosaka's irresponsible conduct of arriving very late for the scheduled operation of petitioner

    Erlinda is violative, not only of his duty as a physician "to serve the interest of his patients with the

    greatest solicitude, giving them always his best talent and skill," 44 but also of Article 19 of the Civil Code

    which requires a person, in the performance of his duties, to act with justice and give everyone his due.

    2) Dr. Gutierrez’ claim of lack of negligence on her part is belied by the records of the case. It has been

    sufficiently established that she failed to exercise the standards of care in the administration of

    anesthesia on a patient. Dr. Gutierrez omitted to perform a thorough preoperative evaluation on

    Erlinda. Further, there is no cogent reason for the Court to reverse its finding that it was the faulty

    intubation on Erlinda that caused her comatose condition. There is no question that Erlinda became

    comatose after Dr. Gutierrez performed a medical procedure on her.

    3) After a careful consideration of the arguments raised by DLSMC, the Court finds that

    respondent hospital’s position on this issue is meritorious. There is no employer-employee

    relationship between DLSMC and Drs. Gutierrez and Hosaka which would hold DLSMC

    solidarily liable for the injury suffered by petitioner Erlinda under Article 2180 of the Civil

    Code. urther, no evidence was adduced to show that the injury suffered by petitioner Erlinda

    was due to a failure on the part of respondent DLSMC to provide for hospital facilities and staff

    necessary for her treatment. For these reasons, the Supreme Cord reverse the finding of liability

    on the part of DLSMC for the injury suffered by petitioner Erlinda.


    . WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision is hereby modified as follows:

    (1) Private respondent De Los Santos Medical Center is hereby absolved from liability arising
    from the injury suffered by petitioner Erlinda Ramos on June 17, 1985;

    (2) Private respondents Dr. Orlino Hosaka and Dr. Perfecta Gutierrez are hereby declared to be
    solidarily liable for the injury suffered by petitioner Erlinda on June 17, 1985 and are ordered to
    pay petitioners—

    (a) P1,352,000.00 as actual damages;

    (b) P2,000,000.00 as moral damages;

    (c) P100,000.00 as exemplary damages;

    (d) P100,000.00 as attorney’s fees; and

    (e) the costs of the suit.

    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like